The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ERLINDO RODRIGUEZ, JR., Case No. 1:26-cv-01703-BAM (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
13 v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 D. CAMPBELL, REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
15 Defendant. (ECF No. 1)
16 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
17
18 I. Background
19 Plaintiff Erlindo Rodriguez, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
20 forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was transferred to
21 this Court on March 2, 2026. (ECF No. 4.) On June 16, 2026, the Court screened Plaintiff’s
22 complaint, filed on February 23, 2026. (ECF No. 1.) The Court determined that on the face of
23 the complaint, Plaintiff’s claims appeared to be time barred and ordered him to show cause why
24 this action should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. (Id.) On July 8, 2026,
25 the Court granted Plaintiff a twenty-one (21) day extension of time to file a written response to
26 the show cause order. (ECF No. 14.) Despite the extension, Plaintiff did not file a timely
27 response to the Court’s show cause order. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that
28 Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are time barred and will recommend that this action be dismissed.
1 II. Screening Requirement and Standard
2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
3 governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
4 § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous
5 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary
6 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b);
7 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
8 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
9 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
10 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
11 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
12 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as
13 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
14 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
15 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires
16 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable
17 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
18 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully
19 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
20 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
21 III. Plaintiff’s Allegations
22 Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison, Sacramento. The events in the
23 complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Kern Valley State Prison.
24 Plaintiff names Officer D. Campbell as the sole defendant.
25 Plaintiff asserts a claim for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
26 Plaintiff alleges:
27 On 5-21-2020, all of a sudden I was slam to the ground recieving kick’s, punche’s
and then I got choke. I was told to be quiet to shut the fuck up. I heard him talking
28 the hole time. So I am sure the officer who assaulted me was officer Campbell.
1 Plus watch comander Edwards at K.V.S.P. told me there should be footage of the
insident due to the eye of God; sitelight is watching the prison.
2
(ECF No. 1 at 3 (unedited text).) Plaintiff complains of mental and physical injuries. (Id.) He
3
seeks monetary compensation in the amount of 77 million. (Id. at 6.)
4
IV. Discussion
5
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a time-barred claim. Section 1983 contains no specific
6
statute of limitations. Therefore, federal courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for
7
personal injury actions. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004); Maldonado v.
8
Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004); Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999).
9
California’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
10
335.1; Jones, 393 F.3d at 927; Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 954−55.
11
Federal law determines when a civil rights claim accrues, and “[u]nder federal law, a
12
claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that is the basis of the cause
13
of action.” Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted);
14
Maldonado, 370 F.3d at 955; Fink, 192 F.3d at 914.
15
In actions where the federal court borrows the state statute of limitations, courts should
16
also borrow all applicable provisions for tolling the limitations found in state law. Jones, 393
17
F.3d at 927. Under California law, the two-year statute of limitations is tolled during the time a
18
prisoner pursues his administrative remedies and is potentially tolled up to an additional two
19
years if Plaintiff is incarcerated for a term of less than life. Douglas, 567 F.3d at 1109 (“State law
20
governs the statute of limitations period for § 1983 suits and closely related questions of tolling.
21
Section 1983 claims are characterized as personal injury suits for statute of limitations purposes.”
22
(citations omitted)); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 943 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he applicable statute
23
of limitations must be tolled while a prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion process.”); Cal.
24
Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 352.1(a) (“If a person entitled to bring an action, . . ., is, at the time the
25
cause of action accrued, imprisoned on a criminal charge, or in execution under the sentence of a
26
criminal court for a term less than for life, the time of that disability is not a part of the time
27
limited for the commencement of the action, not to exceed two years.”).
28
1 California law also provides for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations where a
2 plaintiff meets three conditions: “(1) defendant must have had timely notice of the claim; (2)
3 defendant must not be prejudiced by being required to defend the otherwise barred claim; and (3)
4 plaintiff’s conduct must have been reasonable and in good faith.” Fink, 192 F.3d at 916 (citation
5 and quotation marks omitted); see also Addison v. State of Cal., 21 Cal. 3d 313, 319 (1978)
6 (citations omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden to allege facts to support equitable tolling.
7 Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005).
8 While it generally must be raised as an affirmative defense, a time-barred claim may be
9 dismissed at the screening stage when expiration of the applicable statute of limitations is
10 apparent on the face of the complaint. See Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1026-27 (9th Cir.
11 2015); see also Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 969 (9th
12 Cir. 2010) (explaining claim may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on the ground that it is barred
13 by the applicable statute of limitations when the running of the statute is apparent on the face of
14 the complaint); Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir. 1993) (indicating
15 failure to comply with applicable statute of limitations may be grounds for dismissal at the
16 screening phase if it is evident from the face of the complaint that the plaintiff cannot “prevail, as
17 a matter of law, on the equitable tolling issue”).
18 Based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, it appears that his sole claim is barred by
19 the statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s claim is based on an incident that occurred on May 21, 2020.
20 Plaintiff’s claim accrued on that same date, and it is apparent from the face of the complaint that
21 he knew then of the injury that was the basis of his claims. Assuming that Plaintiff was entitled
22 to an additional two years to file his claim due to his incarceration, Plaintiff’s complaint must
23 have been filed no later than May 21, 2024. However, the complaint in this action was signed
24 and filed with the Court on February 23, 2026. Plaintiff makes no allegations to demonstrate that
25 any equitable tolling should apply or to explain the nearly two-year delay in bringing this action.
26 Thus, Plaintiff’s claim is untimely.
27 V. Conclusion and Recommendation
28 Based on the face of the complaint, Plaintiff’s claim is untimely and barred by the
1 applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to
2 randomly assign a district judge to this action.
3 Furthermore, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with
4 prejudice as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
5 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
6 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within
7 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may
8 file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to
9 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Objections, if any, shall not exceed
10 fifteen (15) pages or include exhibits. Exhibits may be referenced by document and page
11 number if already in the record before the Court. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page
12 limit may not be considered. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
13 specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual
14 findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838–39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter
15 v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18 Dated: August 11, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28