United States District Court, D. Nevada
SCREENING ORDER AND REPORT AND
HOFFMAN, JR. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
plaintiff Eric Chatman is a California state-prison inmate.
On March 12, 2018, Mr. Chatman submitted a civil rights
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1-1) and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.
1). Mr. Chatman has submitted the declaration required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a) showing an inability to prepay fees and
costs or give security for them. Accordingly, Mr.
Chatman's request to proceed in forma pauperis
will be granted.
granting a request to proceed in forma pauperis, a
court must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). In screening the complaint, a court must identify
cognizable claims and dismiss claims that are frivolous,
malicious, file to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Dismissal for failure to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012). To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must
“contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints
and may only dismiss them “if it appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a
claim, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and
construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc.,
135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff must provide more
than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action is
insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear the
complaint's deficiencies could not be cured through
amendment, a pro se plaintiff should be given leave to amend
the complaint with notice regarding the complaint's
deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
Mr. Chatman alleges that in 2005-06 he was harassed,
kidnapped, “dressed to kill, ” and robbed at the
AM/PM in front of Bally's Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada.
(Compl. (ECF No. 1-1) at 1-2.) Mr. Chatman alleges that these
incidents took place in a vehicle and that he was targeted
because he was homeless. (Id. at 2-3.) He further
alleges that he was a “handsome guy, beautiful
guy” and that he was injured so badly he requires a
facelift. (Id. at 3.) Mr. Chatman claims that the
incident lasted for one hour, that he could have died, and
that he will have nightmares of this incident forever.
(Id. at 3, 5.) Mr. Chatman brings what the court
understands to be tort claims for his injuries under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against AM/PM, Bally's Casino, and
Chivas Regal. (Id. at 2-6.) Mr. Chatman requests
monetary damages in the millions. (Id. at 9.)
that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not contain a specific
statute of limitations, federal courts borrow state statutes
of limitations for personal injury actions in § 1983
suits. Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles,
631 F.3d 1031, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The statute of
limitations applicable to an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 is the personal injury statute of limitations of
the state in which the cause of action arose.”) The
Nevada limitations period applicable in this case is two
years. See Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th
Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (citing Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.190(4)).
Chatman's complaint was filed on March 12, 2018. Applying
Nevada's two-year limitations period, any acts that
occurred more than two years before that date are
time-barred. Given that these incidents described in this
complaint occurred in 2005-06, which is outside of the
two-year limitations period, the court will recommend
dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Chatman's claims.
THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs application to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED.
RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as time-barred.
FURTHER RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of
counsel (ECF No. 5) be DENIED as moot.
report and recommendation is submitted to the United States
district judge assigned to this case under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and
recommendation may file a written objection supported by
points and authorities within fourteen days of being served
with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a).
Failure to file a timely objection may ...