William Sabatini v. Alex Azar, II
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Anthony J. Battaglia (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM L. SABATINI, R.N., CRNA, No. 18-55482 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01597-AJB-JLB v. MEMORANDUM* ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 15, 2019** Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
William L. Sabatini appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his Privacy Act action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 779-80 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Sabatini’s action because Sabatini knew or should have known about his claim more than two years before commencing this action. See Rose v. United States, 905 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 1990) (“The Privacy Act provides a two year statute of limitation, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5), which commences when the person knows or has reason to know of the alleged violation.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-55482