Whitney Phillips v. Maggie Miller , 385 F. App'x 623 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 21 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    WHITNEY C. PHILLIPS,                             No. 09-35139
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00298-EFS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    MAGGIE MILLER; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Washington
    Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Whitney C. Phillips, a former Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se
    from the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    *
    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).
    action alleging that prison officials unlawfully detained him almost three weeks
    past his early release date. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
    The district court properly concluded that Phillips’s action is barred by the
    applicable three-year limitations period. See 
    Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080
    (2); see
    also Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 
    923 F.2d 758
    , 760 (9th Cir. 1991).
    We deny Phillips’s request for appointment of counsel because he fails to
    establish exceptional circumstances for such appointment. See Wilborn v.
    Escalderon, 
    789 F.2d 1328
    , 1331 (9th Cir. 1986).
    We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Foti v. City
    of Menlo Park, 
    146 F.3d 629
    , 238 (9th Cir. 1998).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   09-35139