Harrell
Harrell v. Oreck
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Peter T. Harrell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various federal civil rights and state tort law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the federal claims were time-barred. See Cal. Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (providing a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir.2004) (“For actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions.”); Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir.2002) (“Although federal law determines when a Bivens claim accrues, the law of the forum state determines the statute of limitations for such a claim.”); Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 , 127 S.Ct. 1091 , 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (explaining that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action).