Henry Gossage v. Richard Terrill

Good Law
586 F. App'x 393
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 4, 201413-35006California314 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Henry Gossage appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his action alleging that defendants violated his rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), by allegedly failing to inform him that his debarment from federal employment had been lifted. We have jurisdiction under 28 ' U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gossage’s Bivens claim as time-barred because Gossage filed this action more than three years after he knew that his debarment from federal employment had been lifted. See Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir.1991) (limitations period for Bivens action is three years under Washington state law; claim accrues when plaintiff “knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Gossage’s primary argument on appeal, the district court properly concluded that Gossage set forth no basis for equitable…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.