ZALDIVAR v. RYAN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-26No. No. 19-15442

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Zaldivar's § 1983 action because his access-to-courts, mail interference, and retaliation claims lacked sufficient factual allegations to state plausible violations, and his Privacy Act and certain older claims were time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations.

Jose Adalberto Zaldivar, Sr., an Arizona state prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit alleging constitutional violations by prison officials. His claims included denial of access to courts, interference with mail, retaliation, and Privacy Act violations. The appellate court reviewed the district court's dismissal decision and found no error.

The district court properly dismissed several categories of claims. Zaldivar's access-to-courts, mail interference, and retaliation claims failed because he did not provide sufficient factual details to support plausible legal violations, as required even for self-represented litigants. Additionally, his Privacy Act claims and certain retaliation and mail interference claims arising from 2005 and 2005-2006 were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations under Arizona law. Zaldivar argued that a continuing violation doctrine should revive his time-barred mail interference claims, but the court rejected this argument.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Sufficiency of factual allegations in prisoner civil rights claims
Statute of limitations for § 1983 claims and Privacy Act claims
Application of continuing violation doctrine to mail interference claims
Retaliation claims in prison context

Procedural posture

A pro se Arizona state prisoner appealed the district court's dismissal of his § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Jose Adalberto Zaldivar, Sr. appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district courts dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Zaldivars access-to-courts, interference with mail, and retaliation claims because Zaldivar failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (setting forth elements of an access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement); Nordstrom v. Ryan, 856 F.3d 1265, 1271 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing a prisoners First Amendment right to send and receive mail); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court properly dismissed Zaldivars Privacy Act claims, retaliation claims arising from incidents in 2005, and his interference with legal mail claims arising from incidents in 2005 and 2006, as time-barred. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2018) (state tolling and statute of limitations for personal injury claims apply to § 1983 action, and federal law governs when claim accrues, which is when a plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that forms the basis for his cause of action); Oja v. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs, 440 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2006) (there is a two year statute of limitations for Privacy Act claims, with a potential addition of an extra two years for a material, willful misrepresentation). Contrary to Zaldivars contention, the continuing violation doctrine does not save his interference with legal mail claims from being time-barred.

Zaldivars request for injunctive relief, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.