Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01475/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01475-1/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

JOSE ROBERTO ZAIZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEACOCK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01475-AWI-JDP

SCREENING ORDER

ECF No. 1

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS CASE AS UNTIMELY

OBJECTIONS DUE IN 60 DAYS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed October 17, 2019, ECF No. 1, is before the 

court for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff alleges that on February 17, 2016 his cell 

was searched in retaliation of plaintiff filing a complaint against prison employees at another 

facility. See ECF No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff, who has disability accommodations, was forced out of his 

cell without the use of waist chains or his cane, causing injury to his wrist and shoulder. See id. at 

4-6. Further, after plaintiff submitted a grievance with the prison about the retaliatory search and 

lack of accommodations, his grievance appeal was improperly cancelled. See id. at 5, 7. Plaintiff 

was, however, eventually able to get his grievance appeal processed through to the third level of 

review on July 22, 2016.

Plaintiff’s claims appear to be time-barred, according to the dates given on his complaint. 

California’s two-year statute of limitations period for personal injury actions governs plaintiff’s 

Case 1:19-cv-01475-AWI-HBK Document 11 Filed 04/14/20 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

§ 1983 claims. Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 871 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Federal courts in § 1983 

actions apply the state statute of limitations from personal-injury claims and borrow the state’s 

tolling rules.”). Plaintiff complains of incidents that occurred between February 17, and July 22, 

2016, but did not file his complaint until over three years after those incidents, on October 17, 

2019. See ECF No. 1. Thus, the court will dismiss the complaint as time-barred at the screening 

stage. See Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1024-27 (9th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of pro 

se complaint upon screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, in part because prisoner’s complaint, 

on its face, appeared to be time-barred), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 109 (2016).

Findings and Recommendations

We have screened plaintiff’s complaint and find that it fails to state a cognizable claim

and that amendment would be futile.1 We recommend that the court dismiss this case with 

prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding 

over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within sixty days of the 

service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the 

findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document 

must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 

presiding district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). 

 

1 Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that pro se litigant is entitled to 

notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity to amend, unless the complaint’s 

deficiencies could not be cured by amendment).

Case 1:19-cv-01475-AWI-HBK Document 11 Filed 04/14/20 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 204.

Case 1:19-cv-01475-AWI-HBK Document 11 Filed 04/14/20 Page 3 of 3