eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-03

John Davis v. Goodyear Police Department ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN LEO DAVIS,                                 No. 19-15857
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02603-SMB-
CDB
v.
GOODYEAR POLICE DEPARTMENT, et                  MEMORANDUM*
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before:      MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state pretrial detainee John Leo Davis appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims
arising out of his arrest in 2015. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
We review de novo. Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco,
    535 F.3d 1044
    ,
*
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).
1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations); Resnick
v. Hayes,
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Davis’s action as time-barred because
Davis filed this action more than two years after his federal claims accrued, and
more than one year after his state law claims accrued. See
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542
     (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims);
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821
     (one-year statute of limitations for actions against a public entity or
public employee); Soto v. Sweetman,
    882 F.3d 865
    , 870-71 (9th Cir. 2018) (state
tolling and statute of limitations for personal injury claims apply to § 1983 action,
and federal law governs when claim accrues, which is when a plaintiff knows or
should know of the injury that forms the basis for his cause of action); see also
Doe v. Roe,
    955 P.2d 951
    , 964 (Ariz. 1998) (unsound mind equitable tolling may
not be established by “conclusory averments such as assertions that one was unable
to manage daily affairs or understand legal rights and liabilities” but rather requires
plaintiff to set forth “specific facts”).
AFFIRMED.
2                                   19-15857