Travell Bradford v. Clackamas County
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Travell Bradford (“Bradford”) appeals pro se the district court’s final judgment and dismissal orders in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison officials. He claims the district court erred in dismissing all but one defendant from his first claim for relief and in dismissing his second and third claims for relief in their entirety. He also claims the district court abused its discretion in allowing certain witness testimony. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here.
I
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of claims on statute of limitations grounds. Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir.1999). Oregon’s two-year personal injury statute of limitations governs the timeliness of this § 1983 action. See Sain v. City of Bend, 309 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.2002). The district court properly determined that Bradford’s second and third claims for relief were time barred because all the incidents Bradford alleged in those claims occurred more than two years prior to the filing of his complaint on May 16, 2008.