Carolyn Wise-Johnson-Bey v. Lacey Tolbert , 592 F. App'x 587 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 2 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAROLYN WISE-JOHNSON-BEY, No. 13-16714
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00578-ROS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LACEY TOLBERT, Officer, badge
number 13338; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carolyn Wise-Johnson-Bey appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in
connection with defendants’ entry into her residence in March 2010 to arrest her
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
husband. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Lukovsky v. City of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal
on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations); Blankenhorn v. City of
Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bey’s action
is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
§ 12-542(1) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Lukovsky,
535 F.3d at 1048 (for § 1983 claims, federal courts apply the forum state’s
personal injury statute of limitations and federal law for determining accrual; a
§ 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury
that forms the basis of the action).
Contrary to Bey’s contention, Bey is not entitled to equitable tolling based
on fraud or concealment. See Cooney v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 770 P.2d 1185,
1187 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (under Arizona law, “concealment sufficient to toll the
statute requires a positive act by the defendant taken for the purpose of preventing
detection of the cause of action.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16714