Leroy Willis, Jr. v. W. Kollender

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 08-56879 · 2010-03-02 · Unpublished

Leroy WILLIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. Bill KOLLENDER; Et Al., Defendants

Area: other
Panel: Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Gould, Smith

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEROY WILLIS, Jr., No. 08-56879 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00844-JAH- JMA v. W. BILL KOLLENDER; et al., MEMORANDUM * Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding ** Submitted February 16, 2010 Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Leroy Willis, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that sheriff’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

tk/Research deputies used excessive force against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Willis’s action was time-barred.

See Cal. Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (providing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (“For actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions.”). Contrary to Willis’s contentions, the statute of limitations began to run when the wrongful act results in damages, not when the full extent of those damages are understood. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 391 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

tk/Research 2 08-56879