Arthur Frank Sanford v. Ira Reiner Edward Miller John Nickols Gary W. Hutton Michael Brenner

21 F.3d 1115 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Arthur Frank SANFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ira REINER; Edward Miller; John Nickols; Gary W. Hutton; Michael Brenner, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-56375. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 5, 1994. * Decided April 12, 1994. Before: POOLE, BEEZER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Arthur Frank Sanford appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983 and 1985 action as barred by the statute of limitations. Sanford alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with his 1986 state court conviction for barratry. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review de novo a district court's dismissal of an action on statute of limitations grounds. Harding v. Galceran, 889 F.2d 906, 907 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1082 (1991). "When a motion to dismiss is based on the running of a…