The opinion
Case 8:22-cv-00168-FMO-AGR Document 5 Filed 02/02/22 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ZACHARY CASTANEDA, ) NO. SACV 22-168-FMO (AGR)
12 )
Plaintiff, )
13 ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
v. ) COURT SHOULD NOT
14 ) RECOMMEND (1) DENIAL OF
OWNER UCI MEDICAL CENTER, ) REQUEST TO PROCEED
15 et al., ) WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF
) FILING FEES; AND (2)
16 Defendants. ) DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT AS
) BARRED BY STATUTE OF
17 ) LIMITATIONS
18
The court orders Plaintiff to show cause on or before March 4, 2022, why
19
this court should not recommend dismissal of his complaint as barred by the
20
statute of limitations and denial of his request to proceed without prepayment of
21
filing fees.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 8:22-cv-00168-FMO-AGR Document 5 Filed 02/02/22 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:31
1 I.
2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY
3 On January 26, 2022, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, constructively filed a civil
4 rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an incident that is alleged to
5 have occurred on February 2, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.)1 The complaint names four
6 defendants: (1) Probation Officer M. Lesko; (2) Orange County Probation
7 Department; (3) Santa Ana Police Department (“SAPD”); and (4) Chief D.
8 Valentin of the SAPD.
9 Plaintiff has now filed 19 civil cases since November 2021. As relevant
10 here, Plaintiff previously constructively filed on December 15, 2021, a civil rights
11 complaint based on the same event on February 2, 2017 against Chief Valentin,
12 Probation Officer Lesko and the SAPD. Castaneda v. Owner UCI Medical
13 Center, SACV 21-2060 FMO (AGR). In that case, the court issued an order to
14 show cause why the court should not recommend (1) denial of the request to
15 proceed without prepayment of filing fees; and (2) dismissal of complaint as
16 barred on its face by the statute of limitations. The court explained the legal
17 standards governing the statute of limitations and tolling. (Dkt. No. 4.) Plaintiff
18 filed a response. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 8, 9.) On the court’s recommendation, the District
19 Court dismissed the complaint and denied the request to proceed without
20 prepayment of filing fees. (Dkt. No. 7.)
21 II.
22 ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT
23 The complaint stems from the same incident on February 2, 2017. (Compl.
24 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that he was parked outside a 7-11 with his son. Probation
25 officers from the SAPD gang unit got out of their car, surrounded Plaintiff’s car
26 with guns drawn, announced a random probation search and asked Plaintiff to
27
28 1 Because the complaint is not paginated consecutively, the court cites
page numbers assigned by CM/ECF in the header of the document.
2
Case 8:22-cv-00168-FMO-AGR Document 5 Filed 02/02/22 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:32
1 get out of the car. Plaintiff refused. The officers removed his son from the car.
2 (Compl. at 5, 7.) After his son was out of the car, the officers broke the window,
3 pulled Plaintiff out of the car, threw him on the ground, and punched, kicked and
4 tased him. Plaintiff was eventually handcuffed and arrested, and officers put a
5 spit mask on him. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff was put in an ambulance and paramedics
6 injected him with unknown drugs. An officer in the ambulance him in the face
7 with a large metal object. When Plaintiff awoke at the UCI Medical Center, his
8 memory was erased. Plaintiff was taken to the Orange County jail and booked.
9 Plaintiff “beat” the felony case based on the February 2, 2017 incident. (Id. at 7-
10 8.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff lost custody of his children and could not recover his
11 car. (Id. at 8.)
12 Plaintiff alleges First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against all
13 defendants. (Id. at 3.) He seeks (a) an order granting him custody of his
14 children; (b) an order that various judges, court clerks, prosecutors and public
15 defenders have their licenses revoked and be terminated; (c) an order that
16 various law enforcement employees from several police and sheriff departments
17 be fired; (d) monetary relief; (e) bail in his current criminal cases; and (f) an order
18 that the Orange County Board of Supervisors be fired. (Id. at 13-15.)
19 III.
20 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
21 It appears that Plaintiff’s suit is barred by the statute of limitations on the
22 face of the complaint. Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art, 592 F.3d 954,
23 969 (9th Cir. 2010).
24 Federal courts apply the forum state’s analogous statute of limitations to §
25 1983 claims. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387 (2007); Fink v. Shedler, 192
26 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999). In California, the applicable limitations period is
27 two years. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. Assuming Plaintiff was incarcerated
28 during the limitations period, he may be entitled to two additional years of
3
Case 8:22-cv-00168-FMO-AGR Document 5 Filed 02/02/22 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:33
1 statutory tolling under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a). Federal courts also apply
2 the forum state’s law regarding tolling, including equitable tolling, when not
3 inconsistent with federal law. Mills v. City of Covina, 921 F.3d 1161, 1166 (9th
4 Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 388 (2019).
5 Federal law, however, governs when a claim accrues. Id.; Wallace, 549
6 U.S. at 388. “Under federal law, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff
7 knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action.” Belanus
8 v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir. 2015). “‘The cause of action accrues
9 even though the full extent of the injury is not then known or predictable.’”
10 Wallace, 549 U.S. at 391 (citation omitted).
11 Plaintiff’s complaint arises from the incident on February 2, 2017. Any §
12 1983 claim arising from this incident accrued on that date because Plaintiff was
13 aware of his injuries at that time. See Belanus, 796 F.3d at 1025. The statute of
14 limitations expired two years later. Plaintiff claims that he has been “incarcerated
15 this whole time.” (Compl. at 23.) This contention is unlikely to be correct
16 because his current state criminal cases are based on his alleged unrelated
17 crimes and arrest on August 7, 2019.2 Even assuming Plaintiff has been
18 incarcerated from February 2, 2017 through the filing of the complaint for a term
19 less than life and would therefore be entitled to two years of statutory tolling
20 under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a), the statute of limitations expired four years
21 later, or no later than February 2, 2021.
22 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint would be barred by the statute of
23 limitations. As the court explained in connection with his prior complaint based
24 on the same event on February 2, 2017, the complaint does not indicate any
25 basis for tolling the statute of limitations.
26
27
2 Plaintiff has filed a complaint based on his arrest on August 7, 2019.
28 Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 11 at 6, 9, Castaneda v. Garden Grove
Police Dep’t, SACV 21-1892 FMO (AGR).
4
Case 8:22-cv-00168-FMO-AGR Document 5 Filed 02/02/22 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:34
1 “Under California law, a plaintiff must meet three conditions to equitably toll
2 a statute of limitations: ‘(1) defendant must have had timely notice of the claim;
3 (2) defendant must not be prejudiced by being required to defend the otherwise
4 barred claim; and (3) plaintiff’s conduct must have been reasonable and in good
5 faith.’” Fink, 192 F.3d at 916 (citation omitted).
6 Plaintiff states that he was in a coma for three days after February 2, 2017.
7 Even assuming he received equitable tolling for that time frame until February 6,
8 2017 plus four years of tolling under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1(a), the statute
9 of limitations would have expired on February 6, 2021 and the complaint would
10 remain untimely.
11 In response to the order to show cause in the previous case he filed based
12 on the same incident on February 2, 2017, Plaintiff stated that “when I was out I
13 didn’t have the time” and worked to support his family. (Dkt. No. 8 at 1, SACV
14 21-2160 FMO (AGR).) Plaintiff does not explain how working for a living
15 somehow prevents the filing of a timely complaint. Plaintiff has not alleged facts
16 showing a reasonable and good faith effort to pursue his claims based on the
17 February 2, 2017 incident. Fink, 192 F.3d at 916-17; see also Ateeq v. Najor, 15
18 Cal. App. 4th 1351, 1358 (1993) (requiring factual allegations for tolling when
19 complaint is facially barred by statute of limitations).
20 IV.
21 ORDER
22 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall show
23 cause in writing, by no later than March 4, 2022, why the court should not
24 recommend that the complaint be dismissed as barred by the statute of
25 limitations and that Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees be
26 denied.
27 If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this order to show cause on or before
28 March 4, 2022, this court may recommend that the complaint be dismissed as
5
ase 8:22-cv-00168-FMO-AGR Document5 Filed 02/02/22 PageGof6 Page ID #:35
1 facially barred by the statute of limitations and that Plaintiff's request to proceed
2 without prepayment of fees be denied.
4
5 DATED: February 2, 2022 Hina A Kendra
6 United States Magistrate Judge
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28