Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05453-20/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMED ABDALLA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

REXIN,

Defendant. 

 /

1:02-cv-05453-LJO-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 139)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 131)

ORDER REFERRING CASE BACK TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER

SCHEDULING

Plaintiff, Mohammed Abdalla (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On January 14, 2008, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a Recommendation herein

which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to

the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within twenty (20) days. On January 16,

2008, defendant filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. On January 28, 2008,

plaintiff filed a response to the Findings and Recommendation.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper

analysis. 

Defendant objected to the Findings and Recommendation based on the premise that

defendant Rexin examined and treated plaintiff only in 1997, reasoning that plaintiff’s claim

against defendant could not have accrued after 1997, and concluding that plaintiff’s action is

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 142 Filed 03/07/08 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

time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. However, the fact that defendant Rexin

examined and treated plaintiff only in 1997 does not prove that plaintiff’s claim could not have

accrued after 1997. 

The statute of limitations for claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 is governed by the

forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261,

266-67 (1985); Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 408 (9th Cir. 1991). State law determines the

applicable tolling doctrines (see Elliott v. Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 1994); see also

Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 543-44 (1989)), but federal law determines when a cause of

action accrues. Elliott 25 F.3d at 801-02. Under federal law, the limitation period begins to run

when the plaintiff knows of or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis for the action. 

Trotter v. International Longstoreman’s and Warehouseman’s Union, Local 13, 704 F.2d 1141,

1143 (9th Cir. 1983)(emphasis added). No findings have been made of the facts showing when

plaintiff knew of or had reason to know of his injury. Defendant has not addressed this issue,

despite being given ample opportunity to “address[] the allegations actually made in the amended

complaint.” (Court Order, Doc. 130, at 2.) The court cannot rule on matters not before it. 

Therefore, the court shall adopt the Magistrate’s findings that there exist disputes over material

issues of fact regarding the timeliness of the complaint which preclude defendant from

entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

against him. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed January 14, 2008, are

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendant Rexin’s second motion for summary judgment, filed April 20,

2007, is DENIED; and

3. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further scheduling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 142 Filed 03/07/08 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

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05453-LJO -SMS Document 142 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 3