Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01540-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Plaintiff did not file opposition but appeared at the hearing 1

and was permitted to argue in opposition to the motion.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR CEASER, No. CIV.S-05-1540 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,

et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

This matter came before the court on September 8, 2006, for

hearing on defendants Terri Turner (erroneously sued as “Pasty

Turner”) and Dave Jakabosky’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,

appeared on his own behalf. Catherine Woodbridge appeared on behalf

of defendants. Having considered all written materials submitted in

connection with the motion, and after hearing oral argument, the 1

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01540-DFL-DAD Document 11 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

undersigned will recommend that this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action be

dismissed as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure tests the sufficiency of the

complaint. See North Star Int’l v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d

578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). Dismissal of the complaint or of any claim

within it “can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or

the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal

theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990); see also Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749

F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

claim, the court accepts as true all material allegations in the

complaint and construes those allegations, as well as the reasonable

inferences that can be drawn from them, in the light most favorable

to the plaintiff. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73

(1984); Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In a case where the plaintiff is pro se, the court has an obligation

to construe the pleadings liberally. Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026,

1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)(en banc). However, the court’s liberal

interpretation of a pro se complaint may not supply essential

elements of a claim that are not pled. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d

469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska,

673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01540-DFL-DAD Document 11 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 “Defendants attempted to cover up the illegal use of force ... 2

by the fact that there was no internal affairs investigation.” (Am.

Compl. para. 35.) 

 California’s personal injury statute of limitations applicable 3

to § 1983 actions changed from one year to two years effective

January 1, 2003. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. However, given

the date of the alleged incident, this change in the law is not an

issue in the instant case.

3

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges

a violation of his civil rights by defendants Turner and Jakabosky,

two parole officers based in Woodland, California. The amended

complaint alleges that defendants used excessive force during an

encounter with plaintiff, who had entered a local parole office

seeking assistance, and thereafter conspired to cover-up the

incident. The amended complaint prays for damages and an order

requiring “outside consultants” to monitor defendants so as to

prevent any future incidents of excessive force.

Defendants persuasively argue that the complaint concerns

an incident that occurred on May 25, 2001. The complaint contains no

specific allegations regarding any events subsequent to May 25, 2001,

and the allegations of a “cover-up” are very brief and conclusory.2

Plaintiff did not initiate this action until he filed a complaint on

August 2, 2005. Therefore, this § 1983 action is untimely under the

applicable one-year statute of limitations. See Wilson v. Garcia, 3

471 U.S. 261, 280 (1985)(statute of limitations for § 1983 claim is

governed by period set forth in state tort law for personal injury

actions); Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01540-DFL-DAD Document 11 Filed 09/12/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 In light of the recommendation herein, it is unnecessary to 4

address the other arguments advanced by defendants in support of the

motion to dismiss.

4

denied, 529 U.S. 1117 (2000)(same). Plaintiff’s amended complaint is

subject to dismissal for this reason.4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants’

motion to dismiss be granted and this entire action be dismissed as

barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 12, 2006.

DAD:th

ddad1\orders.prose\ceaser1540.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-01540-DFL-DAD Document 11 Filed 09/12/06 Page 4 of 4