Hartley v. Bright

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 9, 2025
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00767
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROGER ANDREW HARTLEY, Case No. 23-cv-00767-PCP

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 D. BRIGHT, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 On or after February 1, 2023, Roger A. Hartley, an inmate at the California Institution for 14 Men in Chino, California, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. No. 15 1 at 3 (signing and dating the Complaint on that date); see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 16 (1988) (announcing the mailbox rule for prisoners). The Court dismissed the complaint with leave 17 to amend. See Dkt. No. 15. Mr. Harley has filed an Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 16, which is 18 before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 19 The Amended Complaint and the exhibits thereto show that Mr. Hartley’s claim is time- 20 barred. This lawsuit therefore is DISMISSED with prejudice. 21 I. Legal Standard 22 Federal courts must screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental 23 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must 24 identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 25 upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such 26 relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. 27 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). II. Analysis 1 Section 1983 “borrows” a statute of limitations from the forum state’s statute of limitations 2 for personal injury actions. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 278–80 (1985). Here, that statute 3 of limitations is two years. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1. Where the plaintiff is incarcerated, 4 California tolls the statute of limitations for an additional two years. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 5 § 352.1(a). Thus, an inmate has four years to bring a § 1983 claim for damages in California. 6 “[T]he touchstone for determining the commencement of the limitations period is notice: ’a cause 7 of action generally accrues when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the 8 basis of his action.’” Stanley v. Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1136 (9th Cir. 2006). 9 Mr. Hartley complains that he was denied certain bedding—an extra mattress, an egg crate 10 mattress, and a special pillow—which would have helped his back pain. See Am. Compl. at 3. He 11 explains that he was issued this bedding in 2011, but it was later taken away. See id. Mr. Hartley 12 reveals, and his medical records confirm, that this bedding was taken away no later than December 13 23, 2013. See id.; see also id., Ex. B at 43.1 The exhibits show that Mr. Hartley protested the 14 removal of this bedding at that time, see id., and so he was aware of it. The statute of limitations 15 therefore began to run on December 23, 2013, and expired December 23, 2017—more than five 16 years before Mr. Hartley filed this lawsuit. 17 Mr. Hartley also complains that he was denied gabapentin, which helped with his back 18 pain. See Am. Compl. at 3. His medical records reveal that he initially was prescribed gabapentin 19 in 2011, and that prescription was discontinued January 9, 2013. See id. at 81. Mr. Hartley’s 20 records also show that he filed an administrative grievance regarding medical staff’s decision to 21 discontinue gabapentin, and this grievance was fully exhausted by October 15, 2013. See id. at 84. 22 The claim therefore accrued on that date, and the statute of limitations expired on October 15, 23 2017—more than five years before Mr. Hartley filed this lawsuit. 24 Because all of Mr. Hartley’s claims were filed more than five years after the statute of 25 limitations expired, they are time-barred and further amendment would be futile. See Deutsch v. 26 Turner Corp., 324 F.3d 692, 718 & n.20 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal with prejudice 27 1 because “amendment would be futile,” where statute of limitations on a claim ran before the 2 || complaint was filed); see also Badwi v. Johnson, 285 F. App’x 378 (9th Cir. 2008) (same, where 3 || prisoner failed to file his complaint within the statute of limitations). 4 For Mr. Hartley’s benefit, the Court clarifies that this dismissal only affects his claim for 5 damages stemming from the denial of gabapentin and special bedding when he was at SVSP. In 6 || the Court’s prior order, the Court informed Mr. Hartley that any request for injunctive relief was 7 || moot because he was no longer incarcerated at SVSP. See Dkt. No. 15 at 2. This dismissal of time- 8 || barred claims has no effect on any claims for prospective relief that Mr. Hartley may wish to file, 9 || because those claims are not at issue in this lawsuit. As the Court stated in its prior order, lawsuits 10 || to enforce current or future accommodations should be filed in the United States District Court for 11 the Central District of California, because he now is incarcerated in that District. See id. 12 || TIL Conclusion 13 The Amended Complaint states only time-barred claims. The defects are not curable on 14 amendment, so this action is DISMISSED. 3 15 Dismissal is with prejudice. This dismissal does not affect Mr. Hartley’s ability to file a a 16 || lawsuit in the Central District regarding the conditions of his confinement at his current institution. 2 17 The Clerk shall close the file. 18 19 IT ISSO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: April 9, 2025 21

P. Casey Pitt 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28