Opinion
20-17241
09-23-2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:20-cv-08066-SRB-DMF for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
David Getzen appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Erlin v. United States, 364 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2004) (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 Getzen's action because it is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 1983 claims are governed by the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury claims); TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991-92 (9th Cir. 1999) (the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims in Arizona is two years).
Getzen's motion for default (Docket Entry No. 15) and motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 16) are denied.
AFFIRMED.