Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00090/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00090-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBBIE DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R. RACKLEY, Warden, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-0090-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. After dismissal of the original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (ECF 

No. 6), plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the court now screens. 

 Congress mandates that district courts engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which 

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental 

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the 

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who 

is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-00090-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 01/08/20 Page 1 of 3
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 

27 

28 

2 

Screening Order 

 The court analyzed plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to § 1915A as follows: 

Plaintiff brings this action against ten defendants. He alleges that, in July 

2009, he reported sexual advances made by his cell-mate (“Raye”) to defendant 

Zapata. ECF No. 1 at 5. Specifically, he told Zapata that Raye had slapped his 

buttocks while he was in bed. Id. He asked Zapata to re-assign him to a different 

cell because he feared being sexually assaulted. Id. Zapata allegedly laughed at 

plaintiff’s request and, subsequently, “thwarted [plaintiff’s] verbal complaint” by 

telling him to “man the fuck up and deal with it like a man.” Id. Plaintiff made 

the same request of other correctional officers (defendants Treichel and Daniels) 

and met with similar rejections. Id. at 5-6. 

 Several days after these complaints, plaintiff engaged in a physical 

altercation with Raye that left him with a fractured eye-socket, facial scarring, and 

various abrasions. Id. at 6-7. In the aftermath of this altercation, plaintiff claims 

that defendants Daniels, Zapata, Treichel, Ikemoto, Smith covered up both the 

nature of this assault and the fact that plaintiff had previously warned them of its 

possibility by issuing a false rules violation report. Id. at 7. . . . . 

 As an initial matter, any failure to protect claim (to the extent plaintiff 

seeks to raise one) based on the 2009 assault appears to be definitively barred by 

the statute of limitations. See Jackson v. Fong, 870 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(“The statute of limitations relevant to [appellant's] § 1983 claims was California's 

two-year limit for personal injuries.”); see also Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 

1013 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Under federal law, ‘a claim accrues when the plaintiff 

knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.’”). 

Even allowing for the two year tolling of the statute of limitation under California 

law for state prisoners (Section 352.1 of the California Code of Civil procedure), 

his claims related to this eight-year old incident are well past the statute of 

limitations.1

 

ECF No. 6 at 3-4. In the amended complaint, plaintiff states that he was “out to court” at 

the San Mateo County Jail from December of 2009 through February of 2013. ECF No. 

16 at 9. He claims that he asked for his paperwork on March 5, 2013 and was told that it 

had been “removed.” Id. To the extent plaintiff supplies these allegations in an effort to 

show that the statute of limitations should be tolled, they are unavailing. Id. at 10. 

 1

 “For actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations 

for personal injury actions, along with the forum state's law regarding tolling, including equitable 

tolling, except to the extent any of these laws is inconsistent with federal law.” 

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Case 2:18-cv-00090-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 01/08/20 Page 2 of 3
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 

27 

28 

3 

Plaintiff was aware of his injuries in 2009, which triggered the statute of limitations. 

Plaintiff does not specify what “paperwork” was missing, why he did not request it prior 

to 2013, or why access to it prevented him from timely filing suit. Moreover, even if the 

four-year limitations period were tolled to March of 2013, when plaintiff learned that the 

paperwork had been “removed,” his January 10, 2018 complaint would still be untimely 

by nearly a year. Thus, plaintiff’s amended complaint must also be dismissed as barred by 

the statute of limitations. 

Leave to Amend 

 The court has afforded plaintiff a chance to amend his complaint, yet he is no closer to 

stating a cognizable claim. Consequently, it declines to offer him further opportunity to amend. 

See McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 809-10 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Repeated failure to 

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed is another valid reason for a district court to 

deny a party leave to amend.”). 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 

United States District Judge to this case. 

 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 16) be 

DISMISSED without leave to amend as barred by the 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)(l). Within fourteen 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.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: January 8, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-00090-TLN-EFB Document 20 Filed 01/08/20 Page 3 of 3