Preston v. Posada

Background

Nathan Lamont Preston, who was incarcerated and represented himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that, in October 2008, Alma Posada, a claims processor for the California Employment Development Department (EDD), used a racial slur after recognizing that he was African-American, told him he did not have a claim for unemployment benefits, and ended the call. He further alleged that when he called back, he was told there was nothing he could do and was not informed of his appeal rights.

Preston later filed a late application for unemployment benefits. According to the complaint, an administrative law judge ruled in January 2019 that he was eligible for benefits beginning October 19, 2008, if otherwise eligible. Preston alleged that Posada and others at the EDD still did not inform him of his appeal rights, process his claim, or pay benefits for the period in which he was eligible. The court stated that the complaint was filed in September 2020.

Screening and Legal Analysis

Because Preston was a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental employee, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant.

The court explained that a claim under § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by someone acting under state law. It held that the EDD is an arm of the state and therefore is not a “person” subject to a § 1983 suit for this purpose. The court also stated that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the state and against a state official sued in her official capacity. As a result, Preston could not pursue a claim in federal court to obtain unemployment benefits from the EDD or from Posada in her official capacity.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Preston might have a separate equal-protection claim against Posada in her individual capacity based on the alleged racial slur and race-based denial of benefits. It nevertheless identified a statute-of-limitations problem. Section 1983 uses the forum state’s personal-injury limitations period; in California, the period is two years. A claim generally accrues when the person knows or has reason to know of the injury. California law may provide up to two years of tolling for incarceration under specified circumstances, and equitable tolling may sometimes apply when a person reasonably and in good faith pursues another legal remedy. The court did not decide whether any tolling applied here.

Order

The court found that the limitations defense appeared complete and obvious from the complaint and the court’s records because the alleged racial slur and denial occurred in October 2008, nearly twelve years before the action was filed. It ordered Preston to show cause—meaning to explain—why the action should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations.

The order required Preston to file a written response by March 5, 2021. The response could raise equitable tolling or any other argument that the limitations period did not bar the claim, and it had to state whether Preston was in prison, jail, or at liberty in October 2008. The court did not dismiss the action in this order; it stated that failure to file the response by the deadline would result in dismissal. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.