Joseph Edwin Harju v. Brian Duncan, Sgt. Raymond Oberg

57 F.3d 1077 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Joseph Edwin HARJU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian DUNCAN, Sgt.; Raymond Oberg, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-16821. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 6, 1995. * Decided June 8, 1995. Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Joseph E. Harju, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants in Harju's action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act ("Wiretap Act"), 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2510-2520 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Harju contends that the district court erred by holding that the statute of limitations barred his claim that defendants violated his rights by taping a phone call made after his arrest. This contention lacks merit. 4 State law determines both the statute of limitations and the application of…