Joyce
Joyce v. Takai
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Allan R. Joyce appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil *119 rights action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we review de novo, Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
Joyce contends the district court erred by dismissing as untimely his claims alleging unlawful seizure of videotapes and official cover-up. We disagree.
The district court properly concluded the videotape claim was time-barred because Joyce filed this action more than one year after his criminal proceedings ended and the criminal court’s suppression of the videotapes put Joyce on notice of a possible claim. See Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 379-380 (9th Cir.1998) (stating claim accrues when plaintiff has reason to know the basis of the alleged injury); Torres v. City of Santa Ana, 108 F.3d 224, 226 (9th Cir.1997) (stating California’s one-year statute of limitations tolled during pendency of criminal proceedings).
The district court properly found the cover-up claim was untimely because the confidential informant’s testimony placed Joyce…