Velez

MEMORANDUM **

Javier Velez appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Bivens 1 and common law tort claims against Internal Revenue Officer, Fatema Mohiuddin. 2 We affirm.

(1) The Bivens claim was filed more than one year after the alleged wrong. It is time barred. Wilson v. Gar cia, 471 U.S. 261, 280 , 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1949 , 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985); Matthews v. Macanas, 990 F.2d 467, 468-69 (9th Cir.1993); see also Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 340(3).

*788 (2) The Federal Tort Claims Act limits tort actions against federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (b). The Attorney General certified that Officer Mohiuddin acted within the scope of her employment. That certification removed Officer Mohiuddin as the defendant and substituted the United States in her place. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d); Ward v. Gordon, 999 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1993).

Velez contests the certification, claiming Officer Mohiuddin did not act within the scope of her employment. He is wrong. The Attorney General’s certification is “prima facie evidence that a federal employee was acting in the scope of her employment at the time of the incident.” Billings v. United States, 57…