Robert Parker, Jr. v. John Barlow

facts alleged to support a cognizable theory.” Id. (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted). “We must accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true

and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. . . .” Id. at 886-

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court dismissed Parker’s complaint—which alleged (1)

defamation; (2) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

(4) federal RICO violations; (5) federal RICO conspiracy; and (6) tortious

interference—because the applicable statutes of limitation barred Parker’s federal

claims. We agree.

Civil RICO actions are governed by a four-year statute of limitations, see

Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S.143, 156 (1987),

2 and “federal civil rights claims under sections 1981 [and] 1983” are “governed by

the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions.” Bonelli v.

Grand Canyon Univ., 28 F.4th 948, 951 (9th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). In

Oregon, the limitations period for personal injury actions is two years. See Or.

Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1); see also Bonneau v. Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 28J,…