eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2019-02

Jose Tapia-Fierro v. William Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS TAPIA-FIERRO,                         No.    18-16543
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04005-JAT-ESW
v.
MEMORANDUM**
WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General*;
KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of the
United States Department of Homeland
Security,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019***
Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Immigration detainee Jose Luis Tapia-Fierro appeals pro se from the district
*
William Barr has been substituted for his predecessor, Matthew G.
Whitaker, as Attorney General under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
    403 U.S. 388 
    (1971), alleging
constitutional claims arising from his unlawful removal in 2001. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
    680 F.3d 1113
    , 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Lukovsky v.
City & County of San Francisco,
    535 F.3d 1044
    , 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal
on the basis of the statute of limitations); Barren v. Harrington,
    152 F.3d 1193
    ,
1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Tapia-Fierro’s action as time-barred
because Tapia-Fierro filed this action more than two years after his claims accrued.
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury
claims); Van Strum v. Lawn,
    940 F.2d 406
    , 410 (9th Cir. 1991) (forum state’s
statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies in Bivens actions); see also
W. Ctr. for Journalism v. Cederquist,
    235 F.3d 1153
    , 1156 (9th Cir. 2000) (a
Bivens claim accrues when the plaintiff knows, or should know, of the injury
which is the basis of the action).
AFFIRMED.
2                                     18-16543