Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01381/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01381-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT TREVINO,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

J. HIEL, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-1381-LJO-MJS

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Robert Trevino (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, brings this civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983”), the Americans With 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29 

U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Case 1:16-cv-01381-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 12/21/16 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

27

28

2

The Court must dismiss a complaint if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or 

malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 

572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant participated in the 

deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the 

presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners proceeding pro 

se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any 

doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations 

omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the 

plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II. Discussion

Plaintiff’s claims arise from incidents in 1998 when he was housed at Pelican Bay State 

Prison (“PBSP”) in Crescent City, California, and in 1999, when he was housed in California 

Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, California. Doc. 1 at ¶ 16. Plaintiff names as 

defendants various individuals at each institution and claims they violated his rights under the 

ADA and RA, as well as his rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 

As Plaintiff notes, his claims arising out of his time at PBSP are properly brought in the 

Case 1:16-cv-01381-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 12/21/16 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

27

28

3

Northern District of California. See id. at ¶ 12. This Court is not the proper venue for those claims. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES all of Plaintiff’s claims associated with his time at PBSP. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the 

wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to 

any district or division in which it could have been brought.”); Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 

1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may raise defective venue sua sponte); In re Hall, Bayoutree 

Associates, Ltd., 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissal for improper venue “does not go to 

the merits of the case and therefore must be without prejudice”).

Plaintiff’s constitutional claims, brought under § 1983 claims, are subject to a two-year 

statute of limitations. Action Apartment Ass’n, Inc. v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 509 F.3d 

1020, 1027 (9th Cir. 2007) (“It is well-established that claims brought under § 1983 borrow the 

forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims . . . and in California, that limitations 

period is two years.”). Because his claims accrued in 1999, they are untimely. See id. The Court 

therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims with prejudice and without leave to amend

because any amendment would be futile. See See Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 

680, 687 (9th Cir. 1993) (court may sua sponte dismiss case as barred by statute of limitations if 

issue has not been waived).

Plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims are likewise untimely. See Sharkey v. O’Neal, 778 F.3d 

767, 771-72 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding California’s three-year statute of limitations applies to ADA 

claims); Ticer v. Young, No. 16-cv-2198-KAW, 2016 WL 4719272, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 

2016) (holding California’s three-year statute of limitations applies to RA claims). Accordingly, 

the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims with prejudice and without leave to amend

because any amendment would be futile. 

III. Conclusion and Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s claims arising out of his time at PBSP are DISMISSED for improper venue;

2. Plaintiff’s claims arising out of his time at CCI are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 

Case 1:16-cv-01381-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 12/21/16 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

27

28

4

TO AMEND as barred by the applicable statutes of limitation;

3. This action counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01381-LJO-MJS Document 7 Filed 12/21/16 Page 4 of 4