Brown
Williams v. Brown
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
In this civil rights action, Louis Williams appeals pro se the summary judgment of the district court as well as various discovery orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We review summary judgment de novo. Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 830 (9th Cir.2000). Because the district court did not expressly rule on Williams’ motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), we review his motion de novo. See Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir.1998). We review the district court’s discovery rulings for an abuse of discretion. Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir.1999).
Because Williams failed to file suit within one year from July 7, 1998, the date he knew or should have known of his injury regarding the tow hearing, the district court properly concluded that these claims were barred by the statute of limitations. See W. Ctr. for Journalism v. Cederquist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000). Because Williams did not set forth facts establishing the requisite elements of equitable tolling under California law, the district court properly rejected this claim. See Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.,…