eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2016-11

Sean Hartfield v. Oregon State Bar , 671 F. App'x 456 ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                             FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              NOV 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEAN HARTFIELD,                                  No. 16-35116
Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00068-ST
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OREGON STATE BAR; DOES, 1-10,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before:      LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Sean Hartfield appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging a Fourteenth Amendment claim. We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo the district court’s
dismissal of an action as barred by the statute of limitations. Lukovsky v. City &
*
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).
County of San Francisco,
    535 F.3d 1044
    , 1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hartfield’s action because it is barred
by the applicable statute of limitations. Although Hartfield maintains that he
should have been given leave to amend with regard to the statute of limitations
issue, he suggests no specific amendment that would have altered the accrual date
on which the district court relied. See Douglas v. Noelle,
    567 F.3d 1103
    , 1109 (9th
Cir. 2009) (explaining that the statute of limitations for § 1983 actions is the state
law statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and that Oregon’s statute of
limitations for such actions is two years); Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp.,
    923 F.2d 758
    , 760 (9th Cir. 1991) (federal claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or
has reason to know of the injury); see also Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert,
    998 F.2d 680
    , 686-87 (9th Cir. 1993) (district courts may sua sponte consider the issue
of statute of limitations where defendant has not waived the defense and plaintiff
has been given a chance to address the issue).
AFFIRMED.
2                                     16-35116