Mosley v. United States Department of the Army , 668 F. App'x 724 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMA JENE MOSLEY, No. 14-16275
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02645-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE ARMY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Norma Jene Mosley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action challenging her discharge from the Department of the Army.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
an action as barred by the statute of limitations. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918,
926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mosley’s action as time-barred because
Mosley filed her action eleven years after the statute of limitations had expired, and
failed to show that she is entitled to tolling on the basis of her application for relief
before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, which was filed eight
years after the statute of limitations had expired. See Turtle Island Restoration
Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 438 F.3d 937, 942-43 (9th Cir. 2006) (six-
year statute of limitations applies to challenges under the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702); Nichols v. Hughes, 721 F.2d 657, 659 (9th Cir.
1983) (“[A] cause of action for wrongful discharge occurs at the time of
discharge.”); Vaughn v. Teledyne, Inc., 628 F.2d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 1980)
(burden of proving facts that show tolling falls on the plaintiff).
Contrary to Mosley’s contentions, the complaint does not reflect that Mosley
brought a claim seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Army Board for
Correction of Military Records.
We reject as without merit Mosley’s contention that 10 U.S.C. § 1558applies to her action.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-16275