Pugh v. Arredondo
Pugh v. Arredondo
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DARRYL PUGH, Case No. 24-cv-01890-TLT
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9
10 S. ARREDONDO, et al., Defendants. 11
12 13 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 14
42 U.S.C. § 1983regarding events at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF). The Court 15 dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 16. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is 16 now before the Court for screening pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dkt. No. 18. For 17 the reasons identified below, the complaint is dismissed. 18 DISCUSSION 19 A. Standard of Review 20 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 21 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 23 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 24 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 25 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi,
975 F.3d 26989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 1 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 2 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 93(2007) (citations omitted). 3 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 4 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 5 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 6 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice.
Id.7 To state a claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 8 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 9 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 10 Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48(1988). 11 B. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 12 Pugh’s First Amended Complaint (FAC) states that defendant Arredondo, Correctional 13 Case Record Analyst, was given court records [and] exhibits in the Spring of 2023 by Pugh’s 14 counselor, which Arredondo lost. Dkt. No. 18 at 2-3. He alleges that he suffered resulting injury in 15 that he was unable to file a habeas petition within the one-year time frame. Pugh alleges defendant 16 Bonta is liable as the person with overall responsibility to ensure that court records of prisoners 17 are protected. Id. at 3. 18 Plaintiff’s FAC has failed to correct the deficiencies identified in the Court’s order of 19 dismissal with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 16. Moreover, any further amendment would be futile. 20 Plaintiff cannot state an access to courts claim. Plaintiff’s original conviction occurred in 2001. He 21 was ultimately resentenced in 2015, resulting in a new judgment. See Case No. 18-cv-03327-RS, 22 Dkt. No. 44 at 4. That new judgment became final on May 25, 2016. Id. at 8. After tolling from 23 Pugh’s various state post-conviction filings and mandamus petition, his ultimate deadline for 24 federal habeas claims related to the 2015 new judgment under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective 25 Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was August 10, 2018. Id. at 9. Pugh’s allegations that 26 defendant’s actions in 2023 negatively impacted his ability to file within the AEDPA timeframe 27 cannot state a claim because the statute of limitations had already long run by the time of the 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 3 relief may be granted. The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions, enter judgment, and close 4 || the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: February 25, 2025 7
= A N 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12
© 15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown