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.

Williams v. C.A. Young

United States District Court, C.D. California

May 19, 2015

LANCE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
C.A. YOUNG, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS UNTIMELY

PERCY ANDERSON, District Judge.

On September 28, 2014, Plaintiff Lance Williams, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging wrongful acts that took place on December 31, 2010. This action is untimely, and the Court dismisses it with prejudice.

I.

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2014, Plaintiff constructively filed a civil rights complaint under section 1983 ("Complaint").[1] The Complaint is one of five civil rights complaints Plaintiff has filed since September 23, 2014. See Case Nos. 2:14-cv-7583-GW-KK; 2:14-cv-8039-PA-KK; 2:14-8640-PA-KK; 2:15-cv-0037-PA-KK. In the Complaint, Plaintiff sues a number of defendants for an assault that allegedly occurred on December 31, 2010. ECF No. 3 at 3.

On November 6, 2014, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend because it did not allege enough facts to state a claim against various defendants. On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). On December 12, 2014, the Court dismissed the FAC with leave to amend, noting, once again, that Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts against certain defendants. On December 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").

In screening the Complaint and FAC, the Court did not question this action's timeliness. The Court assumed Plaintiff had been continuously incarcerated since the date his claims accrued - i.e., since December 31, 2010 - and that he therefore had four years to file those claims: two years under section 1983's statute of limitations, and two years of tolling under California law for the "disability of imprisonment." Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004).

On December 3, 2014, in response to orders to show cause ("OSCs") in two of his other cases, Plaintiff filed declarations ("OSC Declarations") in which he admitted he was not incarcerated for approximately 16 months from 2011 to 2013 - specifically, from February 28, 2011, until August 4, 2011, and from "mid October 2012" until September 18, 2013. Case No. 2:14-cv-7583-GW-KK, ECF No. 12 at 3-4; Case No. 2:14-cv-8640-PA-KK, ECF No. 6 at 2-4.[2]

Based on the information in the OSC Declarations, on January 7, 2015, the Court issued an OSC regarding the timeliness of the instant action.[3] The OSC stated:

In screening the SAC, the Court must acknowledge what the OSC Declarations reveal: Plaintiff was not continuously incarcerated, thus the Court incorrectly assumed Plaintiff had four years from the date of accrual to file this action. In reality, because of the significant gap in Plaintiff's incarceration after the date of accrual, Plaintiff had at most two years and nine months to file this action.
Plaintiff's claims in this case accrued on December 31, 2010. Plaintiff was required to file his claims, at latest, by October 1, 2013. Plaintiff did not file this action until September 28, 2014. Thus, absent equitable tolling, this action is untimely.

ECF No. 11 at 2-3. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as untimely. Id. at 3. The Court allowed Plaintiff 14 days - that is, until January 21, 2015 - to either respond to the OSC or file a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. Id.

On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to respond to the OSC. On January 21, 2015, the Court granted the request, giving Plaintiff until February 4, 2015, to file a response.

On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff requested an additional extension of 60 days, explaining he would like to "obtain new counsel to take over/litigate" this action. ECF No. 14 at 1. On the same date, the Court denied Plaintiff's request, explaining it had previously granted Plaintiff an extension and that Plaintiff "offered no reason as to why 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.