Loran

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Loran appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing as time-barred his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that California officials violated his right to due process by requiring him to register as a sex offender as a condition of parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo dismissals based on the statute of limitations, Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1117 , 120 S.Ct. 1979 , 146 L.Ed.2d 808 (2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed this action as time-barred because Loran did not file it until April 13, 2001, more than one year after he first knew, or should have known, of his injury. See *75 Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 340.3; Fink, 192 F.3d at 914 .

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.