Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pouncil v. Tilton

March 30, 2010

MADERO POUNCIL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rules.

On February 19, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, this court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations.

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). Plaintiff alleges that defendants have violated RLUIPA by refusing to allow plaintiff conjugal visits as required by his Muslim faith. This court declines to adopt the Magistrate's finding that plaintiff's RLUIPA claim accrued in 2002 and is time barred, and accordingly addresses the defendant's other arguments for dismissal.*fn1

BACKGROUND

Since 1996, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") has implemented a regulation prohibiting family visits for specific categories of inmates, including those sentenced to life terms without the possibility of parole. 15 CCR § 3177(b)(2); see Pro-Family Advocates v. Gomez, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1674, 1682 (1996). In 2000, Congress enacted RLUIPA which provides that "[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution ... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability," unless the government demonstrates that the burden is "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and is "the least restrictive means of furthering that . . . interest." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). Both § 3177(b)(2) and RLUIPA were in effect at all times relevant to this case.

Plaintiff is a Muslim prisoner serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Compl. 4. Plaintiff believes that marriage is one of the most important institutions in Islam. Id. According to plaintiff, it is incumbent upon members of his faith to be married, to consummate their marriage, and to have children with their spouse. Id.; Opp. 7. In March 2002, while plaintiff was married to his now ex-wife, plaintiff requested conjugal visits. Exh. A. A prison official denied plaintiffs' request pursuant to 15 CCR § 3177(b)(2), based on his status as a prisoner serving life without parole. Exh. A. Plaintiff filed a grievance alleging that he had been improperly denied conjugal visits. Opposition 4 ("Opp."); Defendants Motion to Dismiss 4 ("Mtd."). The grievance was denied on May 28, 2002. Exhb. A. In April 2006, defendant Tilton became the acting Secretary of the CDCR, and later assumed the position of Secretary in September, 2006. Exh. B. Tilton retired in 2008, and was replaced by Matthew Cate, the current Secretary of the CDCR.

Plaintiff subsequently divorced, and was remarried on July 14, 2007. Opp. 4; Reply 4. On July 21, 2008, plaintiff submitted a family visiting application.*fn2 It is unclear whether this request included a request for conjugal visits with plaintiff's wife, but defendants do not contest whether such a visit was incorporated in plaintiff's request. On August 1, 2008, this request was denied because LWOP inmates are not permitted family visits pursuant to "CCR 3177(b)(2). Plaintiff subsequently challenged the application of 15 CCR § 3177(b)(2) through an administrative appeal on August 4, 2008. Mtd. 4; Opp. 3. The appeal was denied on December 9, 2009. Opp. 3. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint pro se on April 29, 2009 alleging violations of RLUIPA premised on the CDCR's refusal to allow him conjugal visits as required by his faith, which defendants now move to dismiss. Plaintiff labels his complaint "Civil Rights, Act 42 USC § 1983," and specifically alleges violations of RLUIPA. Compl. 1, 4. Mindful that plaintiff proceeds pro se, see generally Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), this court liberally construes plaintiff's complaint as a suit under § 1983 alleging violations the First Amendment and under RLUIPA.

ANALYSIS

1. Accrual of Plaintiff's Claim

Federal law determines when a cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, for Section 1983 actions. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). Under federal law, accrual occurs when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action, and may file a suit to obtain relief. Id. (intervening citations omitted); see also Kimes v. Stone, 84 F. 3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Under federal law 'the limitations period accrues when a party knows or has reason to know of the injury' which is the basis of the cause of action.") (quoting Golden Gate Hotel Ass'n v. San Francisco, 18 F. 3d 1482, 1485 (9th Cir. 1994)). RLUIPA has a four year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) (establishing a four year statute of limitations for federal civil actions enacted after 1990); 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2 (RLUIPA enacted in 2000 without specific statute of limitations); see also Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 382 (2004) (four-year statute of limitations applies to claims "made possible by a post-1990 enactment"). 42 U.S.C Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, abridges rights created by the laws of the United States. The statute of limitations for section 1983 actions is adopted from the forum state's limitations period for personal injury actions. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F. 3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004). In California, a two year limitations period for personal injury actions was established on January 1, 2003. Id.

Here, plaintiff's complaint does not allege an injury from the denial of his request for conjugal visits with his ex-wife in 2002. Rather, plaintiff alleges an injury from the denial of his request for conjugal visits with his current wife on August 1, 2008. The Seventh Circuit has observed that the date on which a plaintiff learns that a rule might violate RLUIPA is not the date on which their claim accrues, because "[m]ere knowledge of the existence of an invalid law that might be applied to one is not an injury, and a tort claim does not arise until there is an injury." Petra Presbyterian Church v. Village of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846, 849-50 (7th Cir. 2007); contra Henderson v. Hubbard, 2010 WL 599886 (F&R, E.D Cal., S. Snyder) (finding that the statute of limitations for plaintiffs' RLUIPA claim accrued in 1998, when plaintiff first challenged § 3177(b)(2) and "became aware of the reason his conjugal visits were denied", and not in 2006, when he challenged the policy again) (adopted in full by O. Wanger). Plaintiff's 2008 denial constituted an individual, actionable injury upon which plaintiff has standing to bring suit. As such, plaintiff's cause of action accrued when his request was denied, August 1, 2008. The two year statute of limitations of Section 1983 will have run in August 2010; the four year statute of limitations for plaintiff's RLUIPA claim will have run in August 2012.*fn3 Plaintiff filed this claim on April 29, 2009. Accordingly, plaintiff's claim is not barred by the statute of limitations. California law provides tolling for the statute of limitations for up to two years based on the disability of imprisonment regardless of the sentence, see generally Jones v. Balanas, 393 F.3d 918, 928 n.5 (9th Cir. 2004) , and while exhausting prison remedies mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 942-43 (9th Cir. 2005).

2. Proper Defendant

Defendants assert that plaintiff has not properly stated a claim against either defendant Tilton or defendant Foston. According to defendants, the plaintiff must specify which action defendants took to violate his rights. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff has properly stated a claim ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.