Brandon Maxfield v. Glenn Fairall

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRANDON MAXFIELD, No. 11-35944
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:11-cv-00285-TC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GLENN FAIRALL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Brandon Maxfield appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force
as barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo. Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535
F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the complaint as time-barred because
Maxfield filed it after the statute of limitations had run. See Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 12.110(1) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Douglas v.
Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (“State law governs the statute of
limitations period for § 1983 suits and closely related questions of tolling.”).
The district court properly rejected Maxfield’s equitable tolling argument
because Oregon law does not allow tolling during periods of imprisonment. See
Douglas, 567 F.3d at 1109.
The district court properly rejected Maxfield’s equitable estoppel argument
because Maxfield failed to allege a basis for estoppel. See Philpott v. A.H. Robins
Co., Inc., 710 F.2d 1422, 1425 (9th Cir. 1983) (for equitable estoppel to apply,
there must be an affirmative inducement by defendant that delayed plaintiff from
timely filing suit).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-35944