Opinion
No. 08-16252.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed January 22, 2010.
Ernest Lee Cox, Jr., lone, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Ssn Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, James Ware, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 5:03-cv-03961-JW.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ernest Lee Cox, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing as untimely his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as time-barred because Cox filed suit after the applicable statute of limitations and statutory tolling period had expired. See id. at 1132-33 (explaining that a one-year statute of limitations applies to any cause of action that was more than one-year old as of January 1, 2003). Moreover, Cox was not eligible for equitable tolling under California's tolling provisions. See Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth applicable tolling criteria).
Cox's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.