Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00598/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00598-3/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

ALBERT J. HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND REHABILITATION MEDICAL, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0598 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, requests to withdraw his complaint. 

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff may 

voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing “(i) a notice of dismissal before the 

opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

Here, no operative pleading is on file; rather, plaintiff has been granted leave to file an 

amended complaint. Thus, no defendant has been served, or filed an answer or filed a motion for 

summary judgment. Therefore, plaintiff may seek dismissal of this action without prejudice to 

refiling under Rule 41(a). However, in his request, plaintiff asks the court to give him “the 

opportunity to re-file the civil rights . . . complaint in one year.” (ECF No. 12 at 1.) Plaintiff 

claims he seeks withdrawal of the instant action “due to some evidence problems.” (Id.) 

Case 2:16-cv-00598-KJN Document 13 Filed 06/06/16 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

The court has no authority to assure plaintiff that he will have the “opportunity” to re-file 

his civil rights complaint in one year. First, the undersigned cannot issue orders addressing 

claims not yet filed or assigned to him. Second, plaintiff will incur another filing fee if he 

dismisses this action and chooses to file a second action in the future. Third, there may be statute 

of limitations1concerns as to plaintiff’s claims. Fourth, plaintiff is required to exhaust his 

administrative remedies as to each claim prior to filing an action in federal court.2 Finally, Rule 

11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that by signing an amended complaint, 

plaintiff certifies that he has made reasonable inquiry and has evidentiary support for his 

allegations. Id. Violation of Rule 11 may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the 

dismissal of the action. Thus, if plaintiff does not have evidentiary support for his claims at this 

time, he may have no option but to dismiss this action. However, if he is attempting to obtain 

evidence to append to the pleading, plaintiff is advised that he does not need to attach evidence or 

exhibits to his pleading. Once the pleading is served and defendants filed an answer, the court 

will issue a scheduling order that provides a period of discovery.

In any event, the court is unable to give parties legal advice. If plaintiff wants to 

voluntarily dismiss his action at this time, he is entitled to do so under Rule 41(a). But the court 

 

1

 Federal law determines when a claim accrues, and “[u]nder federal law, a claim accrues when 

the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that is the basis of the cause of action.” Douglas 

v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 

945, 955 (9th Cir. 2004). Because section 1983 contains no specific statute of limitations, federal 

courts should apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Jones v. 

Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004); Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 954. California’s statute of 

limitations for personal injury actions was extended to two years effective January 1, 2003. Cal. 

Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1; Jones, 393 F.3d at 927; Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 954-55. However, the 

new statute of limitations period does not apply retroactively. Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 955. 

California law also tolls for two years the limitations period for inmates “imprisoned on a 

criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence of a criminal court for a term less than for 

life.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1.

2

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 . . . , or any other Federal law, by a

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “[T]he PLRA’s exhaustion 

requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general 

circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other 

wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). 

Case 2:16-cv-00598-KJN Document 13 Filed 06/06/16 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

will provide plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint rather than dismiss this case if 

he elects to do so. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to withdraw his complaint is denied without prejudice; and

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one days in which to either file a request for voluntary 

dismissal under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or to file his amended 

complaint as required by the court’s May 19, 2016 order. 

Dated: June 6, 2016

/harm0598.59.fb

Case 2:16-cv-00598-KJN Document 13 Filed 06/06/16 Page 3 of 3