DeCheri Hafer v. County of Kern, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 4, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00913
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DECHERI HAFER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00913-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS 13 v. ACTION AS TIME-BARRED

14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Doc. 9

15 Defendants. 30-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff DeCheri Hafer is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 21 action. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On September 4, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 24 recommendations to dismiss as time-barred plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 25 § 1983. Doc. 9 at 6. The magistrate judge separately found that the federal government cannot 26 be a defendant in a section 1983 action and, accordingly, recommended dismissal of defendant 27 United States of America. Id. at 4, 8. The findings and recommendations were served on 28 1 after service.1 Id. at 9. No objections were filed and the time to do so has passed. 2 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de novo review of 3 this case. While a plaintiff may seek compensation for the violation of his or her constitutional 4 rights during a previous criminal trial in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, see Soo Park v. Thompson, 5 851 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2017), the findings and recommendations correctly conclude that 6 plaintiff’s claims are time barred and that plaintiff failed to properly allege that plaintiff 7 exhausted any state law claims. 8 The findings and recommendations also correctly found that the United States cannot be 9 a defendant in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Doc. 9 at 4. To the extent plaintiff seeks to name the 10 United States as a defendant for alleged violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, plaintiff 11 might be able to allege a claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of 12 Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1973).2 However, plaintiff’s complaint fails to specify how the United 13 States or a federal officer is involved in the alleged misconduct. If plaintiff chooses to file an 14 amended complaint, plaintiff must indicate how each defendant is involved in the alleged 15 misconduct. 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 1 On October 15, 2025, the findings and recommendations were returned by the U.S. Postal 23 Service marked “Undeliverable, Not Deliverable as Addressed.” Nevertheless, the Court’s 24 service is deemed fully effective pursuant to Local Rule 182(f).

25 2 In Bivens actions, courts apply the state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims. Kreines v. United States, 959 F.2d 834, 836 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 26 406, 410 (9th Cir. 1991)). In California, personal injury claims have a two year statute of limitations, which may be tolled for two years during a prisoner’s incarceration and may also be 27 subject to other tolling provisions. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004). 28 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 4, 2025, Doc. 9, are 3 adopted as set forth above; 4 2. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed, with leave to amend; and 5 3. Within 30 days of entry of this order, plaintiff must file: 6 a. A first amended complaint bringing claims that are not time-barred and not 7 unexhausted; or 8 b. A notice of intent not to file a first amended complaint; or 9 c. A notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. 10 4. Failure by plaintiff to timely comply with this Order will result in dismissal 11 of this action. 12 13 14 || IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 15 Dated: _ November 3, 2025 4h 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28