Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Martin E. PONCE RAMIREZ, Case No.: 26-cv-01167-JO-VET 11 CDCR #BS8397, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM 13 v. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 14 §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) AND 1915A(b)(1) SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. [Dkt. 1] 16 17 Martin E. Ponce Ramirez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights 18 suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that correctional officers violated his constitutional 19 rights while he was in custody at George Bailey Detention Facility. Dkt. 1 at 1. For the 20 reasons stated below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 21 1. Because the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 22 Dkt. 3, it screens his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under 23 § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court may sua sponte dismiss a case if it is “frivolous, 24 malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] 25 monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 26 2. Upon screening, the Court dismisses the complaint as untimely with leave to 27 amend. Section 1983 claims borrow California’s two-year statute of limitations 28 1 for personal injury actions, along with California’s tolling law, to the extent 2 consistent with federal law. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004); 3 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. Here, Plaintiff alleges San Diego County Sheriff’s 4 Department officials failed to protect him from other prisoners, leading to his 5 being assaulted in December 2019. Dkt. 1 at 4. Because Plaintiff did not file suit 6 until February 10, 2026—more than six years after his alleged assault—the Court 7 finds that his claim is facially time-barred by the statute of limitations. See 8 Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 955 (9th Cir. 2004). 9 3. Plaintiff has not pled facts that would render his claim timely pursuant to 10 statutory and equitable tolling. California statute tolls the limitations period for 11 up to two years for prisoners serving less than a life sentence. Cal. Civ. Proc. 12 Code § 352.1(a); Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 654 (9th Cir. 2000), 13 overruled on other grounds, 543 U.S. 499 (2005). Plaintiff appears to have 14 remained in custody since his 2019 arrest, so the Court presumes the two-year 15 tolling applies—making his claim timely only if filed by December 2023. 16 Because he filed suit in February 2026, his claim is untimely unless he further 17 alleges facts supporting equitable tolling for an additional two years and two 18 months. 19 4. Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged facts supporting equitable tolling. California 20 requires a showing of (1) diligent pursuit of the claim, (2) circumstances beyond 21 the plaintiff’s control, and (3) lack of prejudice to defendants. See Hull v. Cent. 22 Pathology Serv. Med. Clinic, 28 Cal. App. 4th 1328, 1335 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994); 23 Addison v. State, 21 Cal.3d 313, 316–17 (Cal. 1978). Though Plaintiff alleges he 24 pursued the subject claim through the California Government Claims Program, 25 his filing was rejected as untimely because it was not presented within six months 26 of the event. Dkt. 1-2 at 8. An untimely government claim does not support 27 equitable tolling. See Baker v. German, No. 1:16-cv-01873-AWI-SAB (PC), 28 2018 WL 276762, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (“Plaintiff is not entitled to l exhaustion-based tolling because his appeal was cancelled as untimely.”); see 2 also Beaudoin v. Schlachter, 672 F. App’x 706, 707 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The district 3 court properly found that [claimant] was not entitled to equitable tolling for the 4 period that he pursued his related tort claim under the California Tort Claims Act 5 (‘CTCA’) because that claim was untimely.”). 6 5. Because Plaintiff may be able to plead facts that would entitle him to equitable 7 tolling, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of 8 the date of this order. Any amended complaint must be complete by itself 9 without reference to prior pleadings; any defendants not named and claims not 10 re-alleged in the amended complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. 11 Civ. L. R. 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 12 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”’); Lacey 13 v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with 14 leave to amend may be considered waived if not re-pled in the amended 15 pleading). 16 6. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within 45 days, his case will 17 be dismissed based on his failure to prosecute in compliance with this order. See 18 Edwards v. Marin Park, 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the 19 plaintiff eventually to respond to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the 20 complaint or by indicating to the court that [he] will not do so—is properly met 21 with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) distmgsal.”’). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 || Dated: July 31, 2026 (?

24 Hom Jinsook Ohta 95 United States District Judge 26 27 28 3 a