Solomon J. M. Andrews v. Lee Baca

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Solomon J. M. Andrews v. Lee Baca

Trial Court Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:23-cv-02764-DSF (SK) Date August 31, 2023 Title Solomon J. M. Andrews v. Lee Baca, et al.

Present: The Honorable Steve Kim, U.S. Magistrate Judge Connie Chung n/a Deputy Clerk Court Smart / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None present None present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff is a California state inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

. He alleges that deputies at the Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles, California, physically assaulted him in January 2007. (ECF 1 at 5). Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must screen his complaint to ensure it states a federal claim on which relief may be granted. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122

, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Such relief is unavailable if plaintiff’s claims are untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Here, plaintiff had to bring any claims alleging constitutional violations based on alleged excessive use of force within two years of that event—that is, by no later than January 2009, which is nearly 15 years ago. See Jones v. Blanas,

393 F.3d 918, 927

(9th Cir. 2004). As a result, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by September 29, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed as untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). He may discharge this order by filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal using the attached Form CV- 09. Cases voluntarily dismissed this way do not count as strikes under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(g), which caps the number of lawsuits that state prisoners may file in federal court without prepayment of filing fees. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(g). But suits dismissed on their merits— including those dismissed as untimely under applicable statutes of limitations—do count against that lifetime maximum. In any case, failure to file a timely response to this order may also result in involuntary dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and obey court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 41-1.

Reference

Status
Unknown