Case ID: f-appx_677/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hector L. RESSY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-35565
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017
    
    Filed January 30, 2017
    John R. Scannell, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Alicia M. Burton, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office, Civil Division, Tacoma, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
    
      Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hector L. Ressy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Butler v. Nat'l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir. 2014) (application of the relation-back doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)); Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on the statute of limitations). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ressy’s claim as barred by the statute of limitations. See Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991) (limitations period for § 1983 claim is three years under Washington state law); see also Woods View II, LLC v. Kitsap Cnty., 188 Wash.App. 1, 352 P.3d 807, 816 (2015) (the statute of limitations for a negligence action is three years). The district court properly concluded that Res-sy’s amended complaint did not relate back to his original complaint under Rule 15 because Ressy failed to demonstrate that defendants had timely notice of Ressy’s action or knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against them but for Ressy’s mistake concerning their identity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C); Wash. Civ. R. 15(c); see also Butler, 766 F.3d at 1202-03 (discussing the requirements for relation-back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.