(PC) Johnson v. Beard, 2:15-cv-01313-DJC-KJN

Plaintiff Paul Johnson, a pro se state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference by prison medical staff for delaying diagnosis/treatment of prostate cancer; diagnosed July 16, 2013.
Claims against defendant Dr. Chen arose from care provided between 2007 and 2009; this action was filed in 2015 after earlier related proceedings in the Northern District.
The district court previously dismissed Chen as time-barred and on law-of-the-case grounds; Plaintiff appealed and also moved repeatedly for appointment of counsel.
After the Ninth Circuit issued Chudy (reversing a dismissal on similar accrual grounds), Plaintiff moved for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), citing that decision as new controlling authority.
The court granted reconsideration as to the statute-of-limitations ruling, adopting the discovery rule from Chudy and concluding Plaintiff’s claim accrued at diagnosis in 2013, so it was not time-barred.
The court nevertheless affirmed dismissal of Chen without leave to amend because the TAC failed to plead facts sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim; the motion to appoint counsel was denied again.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims against Chen were time-barred / law of the case	Claims did not accrue until cancer diagnosis in 2013; Ninth Circuit Chudy supports discovery rule accrual	Claims accrued when Chen treated Plaintiff (2007–2009), so claims are barred by California's 4-year statute of limitations	Reconsideration granted; court adopts discovery-rule accrual (claims not time-barred)
Whether TAC states an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim against Chen	Chen’s alleged misdiagnosis and treatment delays caused late cancer diagnosis and injury	Allegations at most show medical malpractice/alternative treatment — not conscious disregard of substantial risk	Dismissal affirmed without leave to amend: pleadings insufficient to show medically unacceptable treatment or conscious disregard
Whether appointment of counsel should be granted	Requests for counsel based on complexity and Plaintiff’s pro se status	Prior motions (four) denied; no new facts or exceptional circumstances shown	Motion for appointment of counsel denied; reconsideration of that denial denied

Johnson v. Chudy, [citation="822 F. App'x 637"] (9th Cir. 2020) (applies discovery rule to accrual of delayed-diagnosis deliberate-indifference claims)
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (grounds for granting reconsideration limited to new evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law)
TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1999) (accrual rule: claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury)
Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330 (9th Cir. 1996) (difference between medical malpractice and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990) (mere malpractice or gross negligence insufficient for Eighth Amendment violation)
Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993 (9th Cir. 1988) (law-of-the-case exception when controlling authority changes)
Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1979) (law-of-the-case doctrine and reconsideration)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (Rule 60(b)(6) may reopen judgments; timeliness limits for other subsections)
Gregg v. Dep't of Public Safety, 870 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2017) (accrual in Eighth Amendment claims when plaintiff knows injury caused by conduct)
Carnahan v. Seterus, Inc., [citation="712 F. App'x 702"] (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after repeated failure to cure pleading defects)