Kenneth Yee v. Multnomah County

24 F.3d 252 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Kenneth YEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-35063. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 4, 1994. Decided April 29, 1994. 1 Before: POOLE and TROTT, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge * . 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Kenneth Yee sued his employer, Multnomah County, alleging two causes of action each under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 (3) and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. The district court granted summary judgment and dismissed all Yee's claims. Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, Jones v. Union Pac. R.R., 968 F.2d 937, 940 (9th Cir.1992), we affirm. I. The Sec. 1985(3) Claims A. The Statute of Limitations 4 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 (3) contains no statute of limitations. It is well-settled that in such situations, federal courts should look to state law and borrow the most analogous statute of limitations if it is not inconsistent with…