Edgar Plascencia v. Samuel Ko, Doctor; Chirag Bhavsar, Doctor; Kyle Seeley, RN; Christina Betacourt, LVN

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Edgar Plascencia’s motion seeking equitable tolling or relief from the dismissal of his civil rights action. The court held that any motion construed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 was untimely and declined to issue an advisory opinion on whether a future action would be barred by the statute of limitations.

Holdings

1. To the extent the motion sought relief from judgment under Rule 60, it was untimely because plaintiff filed it nearly two years after the voluntary dismissal, beyond the one-year period applicable to motions based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence.
2. The court could not determine whether a future lawsuit would be time-barred because doing so would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's motion could be granted as relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.
2. Whether the court could determine in advance whether a future § 1983 action would be barred by the statute of limitations.

Disposition

other