RALPH R. BEISTLINE, District Judge.
At
This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
In his proposed Amended Complaint Foster adds as a defendant Warden Kathleen Allison. As against Warden Allison, Foster alleges that: (1) on July 20, 2009, she "authored a program status report that erroneously lockedown [sic] the blacks;"
On July 28, 2014, Foster filed his initial motion requesting leave to amend his complaint. For the purpose of screening this Court assumes that the limitations period stopped on that date. "For actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, courts apply the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions, along with the forum state's law regarding tolling, including equitable tolling, except to the extent any of these laws is inconsistent with federal law."
In his motion Foster contends that the limitation period starts either the last day of the lockdown, November 9, 2009, or when his CDCR 602 was denied, June 28, 2010. The Court disagrees. "Under federal law, a claim accrues when plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that is the basis of the cause of action."
Foster contends that the period of limitations was equitably tolled during three periods. First, that as a result of an attack on his person on March 3, 2013, he was hospitalized and unable to file his amended complaint. Second, on some unspecified date in July 2013 he was transferred to High Desert State Prison ("HDSP") and was without his legal files for a period of a month. Then, in January 2014, Foster was transferred to Corcoran State Prison ("CSP") and was without his legal files for a period of five (5) months.
Assuming without deciding that the limitations period stopped running on March 3, 2013, Foster had 139 days within which to file his amended complaint adding a new party. Assuming also that he was incapacitated from March 3 through July 31, 2013, unless otherwise tolled, his time began running again when he was transferred to HDSP on July 31, 2013. However, because he was without his legal files for a month, his time did not start running again until September 1, 2013. The time then ran from that date until his transfer to CSP, on or about January 1, 2014, a period of 122 days, leaving Foster 17 days within which to file his amended complaint. Foster was again without his legal files for a period of five (5) months. Thus, excluding those five (5) months, the time began running again on June 1, 2014 and expired 17 days later, June 18, 2014. Foster filed his motion to amend his complaint on July 20, 2014, 32 days late.
This Court also notes that it is more likely than not that Warden Allison is entitled to at least qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is analyzed using the two-step inquiry set forth in Saucier.
In applying the second prong of the Saucier test to lockdowns, the Ninth Circuit has held:
Foster has not pleaded any facts that would indicate a subjective intent to inflict harm, or that the lockdown was in excess of that required to restore and maintain order, was unrelated to responsibilities of prison authorities responsibility for maintaining security and safety, or was kept in effect for longer than necessary.
Giving Foster the benefit of every doubt and construing the time frames involved in a manner most advantageous to Foster, it is clear that his motion to amend his complaint is untimely. Furthermore, as noted, it is more likely than not that the Warden is entitled to qualified immunity. Thus, permitting amendment would most likely be futile and do nothing more than lead to further delay in bringing the matter to a conclusion. Accordingly, the Motion Requesting Leave to Amend Complaint at