Buzzard v. Lewis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE RONALD BUZZARD, JR., 9 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01582-JHC-BAT 10 v. ORDER THEO LEWIS, et al., 12 Defendants.

14 Having reviewed, de novo, the Report and Recommendation of the assigned United States Magistrate Judge (R&R), Dkt. # 6, Plaintiff’s objections thereto, Dkt. # 10, and the record, the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the R&R as to its dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims as untimely and GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.

18 As Plaintiff’s complaint does not clarify when Plaintiff knew or had reason to know of his injury, see generally Dkt. # 1, the Court is unable to determine when the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim began to accrue. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Golden Gate Hotel Ass’n v. San Francisco, 18 F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir. 1994)) (“‘[T]he limitations period [for a Section 1983 claim] accrues when a party knows or has reason to know of the injury’ which is the basis of the cause of action.”). Additionally, because Plaintiff || contends in his objections to the R&R that he “did not know” of his change in status until 2023, || see Dkt. # 10 at 2, the Court finds that leave to amend may not be futile. Because a plausible || allegation that Plaintiff did not know or have reason to know about his change in status until || 2023 would alter the R&R’s conclusion that Plaintiff's complaint is untimely and barred by the || applicable statute of limitations, the Court finds it appropriate to give Plaintiff the opportunity to || clarify how and when he knew (or had reason to know) about his change of status and why, in || light of that timeline, his claims should be viewed as timely under the applicable statute of || limitations. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint by October 9 2025.

10 Dated this 29th day of September, 2025.

1] c / oh. K Chur JOHN H. CHUN 13 United States District Judge ORDER - 2