Betty Poe v. City of Rolling Hills Estates

59 F.3d 175 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Betty POE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTATES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-55419. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 8, 1995. Decided June 26, 1995. Before: PREGERSON, POOLE, and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Betty Poe appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for the City of Rolling Hills in her Sec. 1983 suit against the City. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review de novo the district court's summary judgment, Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994), and we affirm. 3 Poe's claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. De Anza Properties X, Ltd. v. County of Santa Cruz, 936 F.2d 1084, 1085 (9th Cir. 1991). While the limitations period for a Sec. 1983 action depends on state law, when the action accrues depends on federal law. Gowin v. Altmiller, 663 F.2d 820, 822…