Raymond Roles v. Melodee Armfield

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND A. ROLES, No. 14-35056
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00363-EJL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MELODEE ARMFIELD,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Raymond A. Roles appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his
right to due process in connection with a disciplinary hearing. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc.
*
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).
v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal on the basis of a 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 Roles’s due process claim as barred by
the statute of limitations because Roles filed this action more than two years after
his claim against defendant Armfield arose. See Idaho Code § 5-219(4) (two-year
statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486
F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2007) (forum state’s personal injury statute of
limitations and tolling laws apply to § 1983 actions; federal law determines when a
civil rights claim accrues, which is when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know
of the injury which is the basis of the action). We reject Roles’s arguments
concerning accrual and the continuing violation doctrine.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Roles’s motion for
relief from judgment because Roles failed to establish grounds warranting
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and factors for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-35056