Williams v. Atencio

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

KENT WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:23-cv-00111-BLW

vs. THIRD REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE DR. WALTER CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants.

This case remains in screening status. The Court is in the process of reviewing whether the statute of limitations bars Plaintiff Kent Williams’s § 1983 civil rights claims that accrued before August 2020. He filed his original Complaint in the original action on August 9, 2022. See Dkt. 3 in Case No. 1:22-cv-346-BLW, Williams v. Atencio, et al (“Case 346”). Only the evidently timely claims remain in Case 346, with the claims beyond two years old severed into this case. After reviewing Plaintiff’s older claims in his Amended Complaint (Dkt. 1 in this action), the Court sought clarification from Plaintiff whether the incidents giving rise to his claims did, in fact, occur before August 2020. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff filed his response to the Order, confirming that the incidents underlying his claims did occur prior to two years before the original Complaint was filed. Dkt. 12. The Court concluded that Plaintiff's claims arising prior to July 2020 are barred by the statute of limitations, unless he can show that the acts formed part of a ““continuing course of conduct,” as defined and narrowed by governing federal case law, or that equitable tolling or estoppel should be applied, as defined and narrowed by governing Idaho case law. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental response and specifically address the factors from Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2012). Dkt. 13 at 3-4. Plaintiff states in his response to the most recent Order that he does not have a copy of his Complaint to review to prepare his response (due to his general decision to not use the prison’s designated copy and e-file services, a claim denied in Case 1:22-cv- 00052-DCN), but he did the best he could without it. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of his Complaint (Dkt. 1) and Plaintiff shall file a supplemental response of no more than 10 pages within 30 days after entry of this Order.

ai DATED: July 19, 2025 ROD Of Well Sod] B. Winmill ior a U:S. District Court Judge

THIRD REVIEW ORDER BY SCREENING JUDGE - 2