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.

Roberto A. Sotelo v. T. Birring

June 5, 2012

ROBERTO A. SOTELO,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
T. BIRRING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION AS TIME BARRED BE DENIED (Doc. 89)

TEN-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

Findings and Recommendations Recommending Denial of Motion

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Roberto A. Sotelo, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 10, 2008. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on March 22, 2012, against Defendants Birring, Das, Diep, Coleman, and Green for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On April 20, 2012, Defendants Birring, Das, Diep, and Coleman filed a motion to dismiss the action as barred by the statute of limitation.*fn1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed an opposition on May 9, 2012, and Defendants filed a reply on May 14, 2012.

II. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, and dismissal is proper if there is a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In resolving a 12(b)(6) motion, a court's review is generally limited to the operative pleading. Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass'n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010); Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007); Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2006); Schneider v. California Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998).

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)) (quotation marks omitted); Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must accept the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Daniels-Hall, 629 F.3d at 998; Sanders, 504 F.3d at 910; Huynh, 465 F.3d at 996-97; Morales v. City of Los Angeles, 214 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 2000).

"A claim may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations only when 'the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint.'" Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 969 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Huynh, 465 F.3d at 997). "'A complaint cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would establish the timeliness of the claim.'" Id. (quoting Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. U.S., 68 F.3d 1204, 1206 (9th Cir. 1995)).

III. Discussion

A. Parties' Positions

Defendants argue that this action should be dismissed because Plaintiff's claims became barred in 2004, and that although the events span from 2001 through at least June 3, 2010, Plaintiff knew of the injury which forms the basis for this action in 2001.

Plaintiff argues that he had an MRI in September 2007, which led to the diagnoses of additional medical problems, and his claims against Defendants arose after September 2007, when he sought additional treatment for his worsening condition. Plaintiff also requests that he ...


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.