Hamilton

Hamilton v. Davis

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 13, 20243:23-cv-06620California581 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL CHRISTOPHER HAMILTON, Case No. 23-cv-06620-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE ON

v. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

GROUNDS

RONALD DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

The case is dismissed with prejudice due to Hamilton’s failure to file suit within the applicable statute of limitations. A complaint “cannot be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts” establishing the claim is timely. Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1204, 1207 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, that standard is satisfied. In the complaint, Hamilton alleges he was exposed to Covid-19 in June 2020 while incarcerated at San Quentin, which means the statute of limitations would normally begin to run at that time. However, because Hamilton was incarcerated, he can avail himself of California’s tolling provision for the disability of imprisonment, meaning that the clock would not begin running until he was no longer incarcerated. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 352.1. According to the complaint, Hamilton was released from prison on December 3, 2020. Thus, because Hamilton filed his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.