1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN R. JACKSON, No. 2:26-cv-00331-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, and this matter is referred to the undersigned 19 pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendant Walmart filed a Motion 20 to Dismiss (ECF No. 5), and Plaintiff failed to file an opposition. The Court now recommends 21 that the motion be granted and this action be dismissed. 22 I. Procedural History and Background 23 Plaintiff filed this action on August 19, 2025, in Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF 24 No. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff alleged he was “racially attacked” while working at a Walmart in 25 Roseville, California on December 12, 2016. ECF No. 1-1 at 11. The factual allegations not 26 entirely clear, but it appears Plaintiff alleges he was in an altercation with a Mr. Giles who was 27 stealing merchandise. Plaintiff alleges he was injured by a loss prevention associate and 28 subsequently fired nine days later. Id. Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination in Count I. Count II 1 appears to allege “slander” against a Walmart manager. Id. at 12. Count III alleges that after he 2 injured his hand in the December 2016 incident, Walmart delayed the process for him getting 3 surgery, which he did not receive until October 2019. Id. at 13. Count IV is against Victoria 4 Snyder, a “case worker” who allegedly told Plaintiff he would continue to receive checks if he 5 continued physical therapy while incarcerated. Id. Claim V is against social worker Mackenzie 6 Dawson and makes similar allegations as against Ms. Snyder concerning claim benefits while 7 incarcerated. Id. at 14. Although various individuals are discussed in the body of the complaint, 8 the only defendant named on the caption and in the case initiation papers is Walmart 9 (“Defendant”). 10 Defendant removed the action to this Court on February 6, 2026. ECF No. 1. On 11 February 13, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Opposition to the motion was due by 12 February 27, 2026. LR 230(c). The Court sua sponte granted Plaintiff an extension to March 16, 13 2026. ECF No. 6. No opposition was filed. 14 II. Analysis 15 Defendant’s motion to dismiss raises several grounds for dismissal,1 the primary one 16 being that the claims are time-barred. The Court now recommends dismissal based on Plaintiff’s 17 failure to respond to the motion and because the claims are time-barred. 18 A. Legal Standard Under Rule 12(b)(6) 19 The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal 20 sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 21 1983). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 22 sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 23 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege “enough facts to state a claim to 24 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A 25 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 26 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 27 1Defendant also raises arguments under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(5), but the Court will focus 28 primarily on the statute of limitations as it is dispositive. 1 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 2 In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the 3 court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and construes the 4 allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 953 F.3d 1082, 5 1086 (9th Cir. 2020). However, the court need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in 6 the form of factual allegations. Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). 7 While Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an 8 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A 9 pleading is insufficient if it offers mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the 10 elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 11 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 12 statements, do not suffice.”). It is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff “can prove facts that 13 it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the ... laws in ways that have not been 14 alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 15 519, 526 (1983). 16 A cause of action is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim when the factual 17 allegations in the complaint and/or other materials properly considered suffice to establish some 18 bar to recovery or an affirmative defense, such as the expiration of the statute of limitations. 19 Sams v. Yahoo, Inc., 713 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 20 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980) (noting that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion can be granted based on the 21 statute of limitations if “the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint”). 22 B. Statute of Limitations 23 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s complaint is “very difficult to understand[,]” but appears 24 to assert claims for wrongful termination, slander, and claims related to delay of care for his hand 25 injury. ECF No. 5 at 3-4. The Court agrees that the claims are not clearly pled. However, the 26 incident described in the complaint occurred in December 2016, more than eight years prior to the 27 filing of this action in August 2025. Thus, the claims are time-barred. 28 A claim for wrongful termination has a two-year statute of limitations and accrues at the 1 time of termination. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; Mathieu v. Norrell Corp., 115 Cal. App. 2 4th 1174, 1189 n.14 (2004). A claim for slander has a one-year statute of limitation. Cal. Code 3 Civ. Proc. § 340(c). Plaintiff’s third claim appears to be related to the processing of a worker’s 4 compensation claim and alleges that Wal-Mart caused delay in his receiving medical treatment 5 for his hand. But Plaintiff alleges he did receive surgery in 2019, more than five years prior to the 6 filing of this suit. ECF No. 1-1 at 13. Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth claims are unclear, but both 7 mention “fraud.” Claims for fraud in California are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. 8 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 338(d). 9 As Defendant argues, Plaintiff’s allegations are all during the 2016 to 2019 time period, 10 more than five years prior to the filing of the suit. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the 11 motion to dismiss, and thus has not argued that the claims are timely, or that he could allege 12 additional facts to provide a basis to toll the statutes of limitation. 13 C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN R. JACKSON, No. 2:26-cv-00331-DJC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, and this matter is referred to the undersigned 19 pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendant Walmart filed a Motion 20 to Dismiss (ECF No. 5), and Plaintiff failed to file an opposition. The Court now recommends 21 that the motion be granted and this action be dismissed. 22 I. Procedural History and Background 23 Plaintiff filed this action on August 19, 2025, in Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF 24 No. 1-1 at 2. Plaintiff alleged he was “racially attacked” while working at a Walmart in 25 Roseville, California on December 12, 2016. ECF No. 1-1 at 11. The factual allegations not 26 entirely clear, but it appears Plaintiff alleges he was in an altercation with a Mr. Giles who was 27 stealing merchandise. Plaintiff alleges he was injured by a loss prevention associate and 28 subsequently fired nine days later. Id. Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination in Count I. Count II 1 appears to allege “slander” against a Walmart manager. Id. at 12. Count III alleges that after he 2 injured his hand in the December 2016 incident, Walmart delayed the process for him getting 3 surgery, which he did not receive until October 2019. Id. at 13. Count IV is against Victoria 4 Snyder, a “case worker” who allegedly told Plaintiff he would continue to receive checks if he 5 continued physical therapy while incarcerated. Id. Claim V is against social worker Mackenzie 6 Dawson and makes similar allegations as against Ms. Snyder concerning claim benefits while 7 incarcerated. Id. at 14. Although various individuals are discussed in the body of the complaint, 8 the only defendant named on the caption and in the case initiation papers is Walmart 9 (“Defendant”). 10 Defendant removed the action to this Court on February 6, 2026. ECF No. 1. On 11 February 13, 2026, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Opposition to the motion was due by 12 February 27, 2026. LR 230(c). The Court sua sponte granted Plaintiff an extension to March 16, 13 2026. ECF No. 6. No opposition was filed. 14 II. Analysis 15 Defendant’s motion to dismiss raises several grounds for dismissal,1 the primary one 16 being that the claims are time-barred. The Court now recommends dismissal based on Plaintiff’s 17 failure to respond to the motion and because the claims are time-barred. 18 A. Legal Standard Under Rule 12(b)(6) 19 The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal 20 sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int’l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 21 1983). “Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of 22 sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 23 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege “enough facts to state a claim to 24 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A 25 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 26 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 27 1Defendant also raises arguments under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(5), but the Court will focus 28 primarily on the statute of limitations as it is dispositive. 1 Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 2 In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the 3 court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and construes the 4 allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Walker v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 953 F.3d 1082, 5 1086 (9th Cir. 2020). However, the court need not assume the truth of legal conclusions cast in 6 the form of factual allegations. Paulsen v. CNF, Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). 7 While Rule 8(a) does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an 8 unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A 9 pleading is insufficient if it offers mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the 10 elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 11 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 12 statements, do not suffice.”). It is inappropriate to assume that the plaintiff “can prove facts that 13 it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the ... laws in ways that have not been 14 alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 15 519, 526 (1983). 16 A cause of action is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim when the factual 17 allegations in the complaint and/or other materials properly considered suffice to establish some 18 bar to recovery or an affirmative defense, such as the expiration of the statute of limitations. 19 Sams v. Yahoo, Inc., 713 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 20 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980) (noting that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion can be granted based on the 21 statute of limitations if “the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint”). 22 B. Statute of Limitations 23 Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s complaint is “very difficult to understand[,]” but appears 24 to assert claims for wrongful termination, slander, and claims related to delay of care for his hand 25 injury. ECF No. 5 at 3-4. The Court agrees that the claims are not clearly pled. However, the 26 incident described in the complaint occurred in December 2016, more than eight years prior to the 27 filing of this action in August 2025. Thus, the claims are time-barred. 28 A claim for wrongful termination has a two-year statute of limitations and accrues at the 1 time of termination. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; Mathieu v. Norrell Corp., 115 Cal. App. 2 4th 1174, 1189 n.14 (2004). A claim for slander has a one-year statute of limitation. Cal. Code 3 Civ. Proc. § 340(c). Plaintiff’s third claim appears to be related to the processing of a worker’s 4 compensation claim and alleges that Wal-Mart caused delay in his receiving medical treatment 5 for his hand. But Plaintiff alleges he did receive surgery in 2019, more than five years prior to the 6 filing of this suit. ECF No. 1-1 at 13. Plaintiff’s fourth and fifth claims are unclear, but both 7 mention “fraud.” Claims for fraud in California are subject to a three-year statute of limitations. 8 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 338(d). 9 As Defendant argues, Plaintiff’s allegations are all during the 2016 to 2019 time period, 10 more than five years prior to the filing of the suit. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the 11 motion to dismiss, and thus has not argued that the claims are timely, or that he could allege 12 additional facts to provide a basis to toll the statutes of limitation. 13 C. Failure to Oppose 14 “[F]ailure to file a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as a non- 15 opposition to the motion.” LR 230(c). Plaintiff’s opposition was originally due on February 27, 16 2025. Pro se litigants are subject to the same procedural requirements as other litigants. Munoz 17 v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022). On March 6, 2025, the Court sua sponte 18 granted Plaintiff until March 16, 2026, to file an opposition, but no opposition was filed. ECF 19 No. 6. The Court also cautioned that “failure to timely file an opposition may be construed by the 20 Court as non-opposition to the motion.” ECF No. 6. Dismissal of the action is also warranted on 21 this ground. 22 III. Conclusion 23 The Court has considered Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff’s failure to oppose 24 the motion. The failure to comply with Local Rule 230 alone could merit dismissal. See Ghazali 25 v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a 26 proper ground for dismissal.”). However, the Court has addressed the merits of Defendant’s 27 motion to dismiss and finds the claims to be time-barred. 28 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: ] 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) be GRANTED; and 2 2. The Clerk be directed to enter judgment and close this file. 3 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written 6 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 7 || Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 8 | specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 9 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 | DATED: May 7, 2026
12 13 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28