Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03412/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03412-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Padilla
Defendant
Daniel Rodriguez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OSCAR PADILLA,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-03412 JSW

ORDER DENYING RENEWED

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND DISMISSING

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On May 25, 2006, Plaintiff Daniel Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint and an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. Courts must deny in forma pauperis applications

under certain circumstances, including when the underlying complaint sought to be filed is

frivolous or when it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2). On June 7, 2006, the Court denied Plaintiff’ application without prejudice and

dismissed his complaint with leave to amend.

On June 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, captioned “Attempted Murder

of Murder Amended Complaint,” setting forth the same basic allegations contained in his initial

complaint. Although Plaintiff’s amended complaint is slightly more comprehensible than his

initial complaint, it does not clearly forth the grounds upon which this Court has jurisdiction,

nor does he set forth the nature of the relief that he seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Liberally

construed, however, it appears that Plaintiff may wish to assert a claim based upon 42 U.S.C. §

1983. A review of the amended complaint and the initial complaint demonstrate that the

incident giving rise to these claims occurred in May 2003. Thus, the record discloses that any 
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

such claim would be barred by the applicable limitations period, unless Plaintiff can

demonstrate that the statute of limitations should be tolled. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918,

927 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts apply forum state’s statute of limitations period for personal injury

actions in action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1188-89

(9th Cir. 1999) (Section 1983 borrows forum state’s limitations period, including tolling

provisions); Cal. Code Civ. P. § 335.1 (two year limitations period for assault, battery, or injury

to a person based on wrongful conduct of another); Cal. Code Civ. P. § 352.1 (providing two

year tolling period for persons “imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in execution under the

sentence of a criminal court for a term less than for life,” at time cause of action accrued). 

Because the face of Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not set forth facts demonstrating

that the statute of limitations should be tolled, the Court shall provide him with one further, and

final, opportunity to amend his complaint. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s renewed application to

proceed in forma pauperis is HEREBY DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Amended

Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, he must file a second amended complaint setting

forth the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, a cognizable legal claim, and the relief that he seeks

from this Court. Plaintiff must also complete a new application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be due

by July 7, 2006. If Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to demonstrate that his claims

are not barred by the statute of limitations, the Court shall dismiss this case with prejudice. 

The Court again advises Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains

helpful information about proceeding without an attorney, is available through the Court’s

website or in the Clerk’s office. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE