Case ID: f-appx_135/html/0971-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ljubomir ATANASOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, a municipal corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-17300.
    D.C. No. CV-04-01237-PHX-JAT.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 22, 2005.
    Ljubomir Atanasoff, Fountain Hills, AZ, pro se.
    C. Brad Woodford, Moyes Storey, Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ljubomir Atanasoff appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing, for failure to state a claim, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that officials of Fountain Hills, Arizona violated his constitutional rights by denying a building permit in 1993. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Atanasoffs action because his claims are time-barred. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-542(1) (establishing two year statute of limitations); De Luna v. Farris, 841 F.2d 312, 315 (9th Cir.1988).

Atanasoffs remaining contentions lack merit.

We deny appellees’ request for sanctions without prejudice to the filing of a separate motion pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 38 and 9th Cir. Rule 39-1.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.