Free Order on Motion to Dismiss Case - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8

JAY JEFFERS, JR.,
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JOSEPH ORTEGA, REBECCA ) SPURLOCK, CORPORAL WILLIAMS, ) DR. LIZARRAGA, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________ )

CIV 04-0572 PHX MHM (LOA) ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Lizarraga's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint [Docket No. 86] pursuant to Rule 12(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I Procedural History Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Pinal County Jail from December 16, 2000, through April 2, 2001. On March 22,

2004, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. On September 3, 2004, the Court ordered Defendants

Ortega, Williams, and Spurlock to answer the allegation that they were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious

medical needs in violation of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. See Docket No. 9.

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 150

Filed 08/24/2006

Page 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint to add Dr. Lizarraga as a defendant in this matter on March 29, 2005, and another motion to amend his complaint on May 4, 2005. Docket No. 23 & Docket No. 39. See

Pursuant to an order of the

Court, Plaintiff lodged a proposed amended complaint on June 3, 2005. On June 9, 2005, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve the

amended complaint on Defendants Williams and Ortega, and to serve the amended complaint on Defendant Lizarraga. No. 44. See Docket

Defendants Ortega, Williams, and Spurlock answered the See Docket No. 49. On

amended complaint on August 1, 2005.

September 20, 2005, Defendant Lizarraga filed an answer to the amended complaint. See Docket No. 75.

Defendant Lizarraga filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint asserts on October 11, 2005. Docket him No. must 86. be

Defendant

Plaintiff's

claims

against

dismissed because Plaintiff did not file his section 1983 complaint within the applicable statute of limitations.

Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on December 23, 2005. Docket No. 115 & Docket No. 116.1 Defendant filed a reply to the response on January 26, 2006. II DISCUSSION A. Standard for granting a motion to dismiss In reviewing the defendants' motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), the district court views the facts as presented in the pleadings in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, accepting as true all the
Defendants Ortega, Williams, and Spurlock filed a motion for partial summary judgment on December 16, 2005. See Docket No. 109. -2-

See Docket No. 126.

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 150

Filed 08/24/2006

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

allegations in their complaint and treating as false those allegations in the answer that contradict the plaintiffs' allegations. Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 967 F.2d 1298, 1301 (9th Cir. 1992). See also Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co.,

896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990) ("[T]he allegations of the non-moving party must be accepted as true, while the allegations of the moving party which have been denied are assumed to be false."); Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2001) ("The standard for granting a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is identical to that of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim."); Pooley v. National Hole-In-One Assoc., 89 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1109 (D. Ariz. 2000). Judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, may be granted when the pleadings indicate that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims which would entitle him to relief. See

Enron Oil Training & Transp. Co. v. Welbrook Ins. Co., Ltd., 132 F.3d 526, 528 (9th Cir. 1997). When deciding a motion to

dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must take the factual allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002); Epstein v. Washington Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1996). Additionally, pro se

complaints are held to a less strict standard than those drafted by counsel. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct.
-3-

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 150

Filed 08/24/2006

Page 3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

285, 292 (1976).

It is not appropriate to dismiss a pro se

prisoner's civil rights action unless it is "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." 2. Statute of limitations Lizarraga asserts Plaintiff's Eighth Id.

Defendant

Amendment claim against him must be dismissed because Plaintiff did not file his complaint within the two-year statute of limitations applicable to section 1983 actions filed by Arizona inmates. The federal courts apply state statutes of limitation to claims brought by prisoners pursuant to section 1983. See

Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276, 105 S. Ct. 1938, 1947 (1985). years. In Arizona, the relevant statute of limitations is two See, e.g., DeLuna v. Farris, 841 F.2d 312, 313 (9th Cir.

1988); Marks v. Parra, 785 F.2d 1419, 1420 (9th Cir. 1986). Additionally, appropriate "federal state courts of must apply not but only also the the

statute

limitations,

applicable state rule for tolling that statute of limitations for actions brought under § 1983." DeLuna, 841 F.2d at 314.

The tolling provisions for prisoners civil rights suits in Arizona are contained in Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-502. Pursuant to this statute, imprisonment tolls the applicable statute of limitations until the date the prisoner discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, his right to sue the defendant. Id. at 315.

-4-

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 150

Filed 08/24/2006

Page 4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

However, when a section 1983 claim accrues and the relevant statute of limitations begins to run against the claimant is determined according to federal law. See Wilson,

471 U.S. at 275, 105 S. Ct. at 1946-47; Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 1994). Within the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals, the statute of limitations in a section 1983 action begins to run when the plaintiff knows, or has reason to know, that he has been injured. See Kimes v.

Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 1996) ("A claim accrues when the plaintiff knows, or should know, of the injury which is the basis of the cause of action."). The discovery rule provides a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows, or should know, of the injury which is the basis of the cause of action. The cause is known when the immediate physical cause of the injury is discovered... The Ninth Circuit has stated repeatedly the plaintiff need not also know the identity of the person who caused the injury. Thus, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the plaintiff knows he or she has been injured and knows the physical cause of that injury. Clavette v. Sweeney, 132 F. Supp. 2d 864, 874-75 (D. Or. 2001)

19

(internal citations and quotations omitted).
20

Plaintiff's
21 22

section

1983

action

asserts

Defendant

Lizarraga was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs
23 24

from

December

16,

2000,

through

April

2,

2001,

in

violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.
25

The section 1983

action was not filed within the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
26 27 28 -5-

Plaintiff's claim accrued no later than April 2,

2001, and Plaintiff's complaint was not filed until March of

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 150

Filed 08/24/2006

Page 5 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

2004, almost three years later.

See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d

911, 914-15 (9th Cir. 1999); TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 993 (9th Cir. 1999); DeLuna, 841 F.2d at 314-15; Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995) ("Thus, for purposes of a § 1983 claim, a cause of action accrues either when the plaintiff has knowledge of his claim or when he is put on notice--e.g., by the knowledge of the fact of injury and who caused it--to make reasonable inquiry and that inquiry would reveal the existence of a colorable claim."). Plaintiff asserts in response to the motion to dismiss: "The Federal courts should not determine the length of time in which a Plaintiff has to bring a civil action based on the states limitation time length law." further contends: The Federal courts further should base their limitation on the nature of the repeated claims that are brought against them ... Plaintiff filed befor[e] the 3 years limitation law ended, in which I was told that any person seeking to file a lawsuit must file it within 3 years after any incident happens. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further contends that his complaint is not with regard to Defendants Williams, Ortega, and Docket No. 114. Plaintiff

20

untimely
21 22

Spurlock, asserting that his damages with regard to these Defendants continues to "accrue."
23

Id. have known of Defendant

Plaintiff
24 25

knew

or

should

Lizarraga's involvement in the alleged civil rights violation on or before April of 2001 and, therefore, the two-year statute of
26

limitations regarding the civil rights violation stated in his
27 28 -6-

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 150

Filed 08/24/2006

Page 6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

section 1983 action filed in March of 2004 expired prior to his bringing suit. Therefore, the section 1983 claims as against

Defendant Lizarraga must be dismissed with prejudice. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Lizaragga's motion to dismiss the amended complaint [Docket No. 86] is granted. Plaintiff's amended complaint is hereby dismissed

with prejudice. DATED this 23rd day of August, 2006.

-7-

Case 2:04-cv-00572-MHM-LOA

Document 150

Filed 08/24/2006

Page 7 of 7