22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T47d,MEMORANDUM 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 sheriffs 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 , 127 S.Ct. 1091 , 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4aa,

MEMORANDUM

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 sheriffs 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 , 127 S.Ct. 1091 , 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.