Darrell Moore, Sr. v. Rudolf Montiel

MEMORANDUM

Darrell J. Moore, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We may affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record, Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 979 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Moore’s conspiracy and retaliation claims because the harms alleged in the complaint occurred more than two years before Moore filed his action. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury action); Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying California’s statute of limitations for personal injury torts to § 1983 and § 1985 claims).

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s damages claim against Judge Jones on the basis of judicial immunity. See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc) (“Judges and those performing judge-like functions are absolutely immune from damage liability for…