Bermudez v. Allison
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:20-cv-00860
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Bermudez v. Allison: Judge Hixson dismissed Bermudez’s civil-rights case with prejudice because his challenge to a 2005 prison designation was filed too late.
Raymond D. Bermudez’s action against J. Allison was dismissed with prejudice, judgment was entered for Allison, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Bermudez v. Allison, Raymond D. Bermudez, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, sued Warden J. Allison under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that a 2005 “R” suffix placed on his prison classification was incorrect and endangered his safety, and he sought its removal and $4.2 million in damages.
Allison moved to dismiss, arguing that Bermudez had not exhausted administrative remedies, waited too long to sue, failed to state a constitutional claim, and could not obtain damages from her in her official capacity. Bermudez did not oppose the motion.
The court concluded that the claim accrued when the “R” suffix was added in 2005 and was therefore filed too late. Judge Hixson granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed the action with prejudice as untimely, entered judgment for Allison, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Bermudez v. Allison · No. 3:20-cv-00860
- Thomas Hixson
- Jan. 26, 2021
Background
Raymond D. Bermudez, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against J. Allison, identified in the opinion as the prison’s warden. The amended complaint alleged that, in 2005, Allison was deliberately indifferent to Bermudez’s safety when an “R” suffix was incorrectly placed on his prison classification record. Bermudez alleged that he had never been charged with rape or oral copulation and that the suffix put his life at risk. He sought removal of the suffix and $4.2 million in compensatory damages.
Motion to Dismiss
Allison moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. She argued that Bermudez failed to exhaust administrative remedies, that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, that the complaint did not state an Eighth Amendment claim, and that the Eleventh Amendment barred damages against her in her official capacity. Bermudez filed no opposition.
Court’s Analysis
The court addressed the statute-of-limitations issue and concluded that the claim was untimely. Section 1983 has no limitations period of its own, so the court applied California’s two-year period for personal-injury claims. The court also explained that California law generally gives an incarcerated person an additional two years of tolling, resulting in a generally applicable four-year period for this type of claim.
The court determined that Bermudez’s claim accrued in 2005 because he knew both that the “R” suffix had been placed on his classification and that he lacked a sex-crime conviction. The court therefore concluded that the limitations period expired in 2009, while Bermudez filed the action in 2020. It declined to address Allison’s other arguments.
Disposition
The court granted Allison’s motion to dismiss as time-barred and dismissed the action with prejudice as untimely. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Allison and against Bermudez and to close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.