“the applicable statute 7 of limitations must be tolled while a prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion 8 process”
How later courts described this case
- “the applicable statute 7 of limitations must be tolled while a prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion 8 process”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 HERMAN TAMRAT, Case No. 20-cv-01324-PJH
9 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE
10 v. TO AMEND
11 ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
14 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
15 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
16 DISCUSSION
17 STANDARD OF REVIEW
18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners
19 seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
20 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and
21 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief
22 may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
23 relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.
24 Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement
26 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not
27 necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim
1 (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed
2 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment]
3 to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
4 elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
5 raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
6 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state
7 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme
8 Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal
9 conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual
10 allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their
11 veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”
12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
13 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
14 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
15 violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the
16 color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
17 LEGAL CLAIMS
18 Plaintiff presents many allegations of mistreatment and violations of his rights by
19 jail guards over a two-year period.
20 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a plaintiff must provide “a short and plain
21 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief....” Rule 8 requires
22 “sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.”
23 McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir.1991)). Accord Richmond v. Nationwide
24 Cassel L.P., 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir.1995) (amended complaint with vague and scanty
25 allegations fails to satisfy the notice requirement of Rule 8.) “The propriety of dismissal
26 for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is wholly
27 without merit,” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.1996).
1 Moreover, “[M]ultiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against
2 Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George
3 v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different
4 defendants belong in different suits,” not only to prevent the sort of “morass” that a multi-
5 claim, multi-defendant suit can produce, “but also to ensure that prisoners pay the
6 required filing fees – for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of
7 frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of required fees.”
8 Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)).
9 The complaint is 100 handwritten pages and names 20 defendants. Plaintiff
10 presents allegations concerning dozens of incidents at Santa Rita Jail from 2016 to 2018.
11 Among the many allegations, he states that his cane was improperly confiscated, guards
12 failed to protect him from being beaten and sexually assaulted by other inmates, he
13 received inadequate medical care, he was denied a clean cell and clean laundry, his
14 legal mail was improperly handled, his due process rights were violated in the grievance
15 process and he was the victim of excessive force by guards. The majority of these
16 incidents are unrelated other than they happened at the same jail over a two-year period.
17 In addition, some of these incidents appear untimely.
18 Plaintiff’s complaint in this action illustrates the “unfair burdens” imposed by
19 complaints, “prolix in evidentiary detail, yet without simplicity, conciseness and clarity”
20 which “fail to perform the essential functions of a complaint.” McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-
21 80. Plaintiff has also presented many unrelated claims. The complaint is dismissed with
22 leave to amend. Plaintiff must only present a few related claims in an amended
23 complaint and describe how the specific defendants violated his rights. Other claims
24 must be brought in separate cases.
25 Plaintiff is also informed that section 1983 does not contain its own limitations
26 period. The appropriate period is that of the forum state’s statute of limitations for
27 personal injury torts. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985), superseded by
1 377-78 (2004); TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). In California, the
2 general residual statute of limitations for personal injury actions is the two-year period set
3 forth at California Civil Procedure Code § 335.1 and is the applicable statute in § 1983
4 actions.1 The statute of limitations is tolled for the period in which a prisoner
5 administratively exhausted his underlying grievances, pursuant to the requirements of the
6 PLRA. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 942-43 (9th Cir. 2005) (“the applicable statute
7 of limitations must be tolled while a prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion
8 process”).
9 CONCLUSION
10 1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the
11 standards set forth above. The clerk shall SEND plaintiff two blank civil rights forms. The
12 amended complaint must be filed no later than June 19 2020, and must include the
13 caption and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT
on the first page. The amended complaint must be no longer than 25 PAGES including
14
exhibits. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint,
15
plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
16
F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original
17
complaint by reference.
18
2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the
19
court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed
20
“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely
21
fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute
22
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
23
24
25
1 California Civil Procedure Code section 352.1 recognizes imprisonment as a disability
26
that tolls the statute of limitations when a person is “imprisoned on a criminal charge, or
in execution under the sentence of a criminal court for a term of less than for life.” Cal.
27
Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a). The tolling is not indefinite, however; the disability of
1 IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 Dated: May 12, 2020
3
4 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
5 United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27