Opinion
20-15365
03-22-2022
GREGORY GOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID BAUGHMAN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00732-JAM-EFB John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
California state prisoner Gregory Goods appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gregg v. Haw. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 870 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal as time-barred); 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 Goods's action because Goods failed to file his action within the two-year statute of limitations or establish any basis for tolling. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387, 394 (2007) (federal courts in § 1983 actions apply the state statute of limitations and borrow applicable tolling provisions from state law); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 352.1, 352(a) (setting forth two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, a two-year maximum statutory tolling due to imprisonment, and the availability of tolling for mental incapacity); Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275-1277 (9th Cir. 1993) (stating California's three-pronged test for equitable tolling and explaining that dismissal may be appropriate when it is evident from the face of the complaint that equitable tolling is unavailable as a matter of law).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.