Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0875-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Terry M. TURNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 08-16410.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
    Terry M. Turner, Petersburg, VA, pro se.
    Kate S. Metzger, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of Corporation Counsel, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Terry M. Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights and negligence in connection with criminal proceedings against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 790-91 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on statute of limitations grounds because Turner failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the limitations period was tolled after July 2004, and he did not file this action until more than two years later. See Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2007) (explaining that, for section 1983 actions, courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions and that state’s tolling provisions); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 657-7 (providing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions under Hawaii law); Haw.Rev. Stat. § 657-13 (allowing for tolling of the limitations period for insanity or imprisonment); Buck v. Miles, 89 Hawai’i 244, 971 P.2d 717, 724-25 (1999) (defining insanity for tolling purposes).

Turner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.