Denham

Denham v. County of El Dorado

Good Law
32 F. App'x 371
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 19, 2002No. 01-15350; D.C. No. CV-98-01383-MLS (PAN)California345 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Denham appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that state officials violated his civil rights by favoring his neighbor during the course of a protracted dispute over a driveway easement and by unfairly arresting and prosecuting him on several occasions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

All of Denham’s claims accrued prior to 1997. Denham did not file his federal action until July 20, 1998. Denham’s claims are therefore barred by the one-year statute of limitations that applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . See McDougal v. County of Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 672-73 (9th Cir.1991). The prosecution that Denham contends lasted until 1998 does not serve to toll the applicable statute of limitations. See Strung v. L.D.W. Anderson, 452 F.2d 632, 633 (9th Cir.1971) (per curiam).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Denham’s request to re-open discovery, because Denham failed to show the evidence he sought existed and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.