Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brian ALEXIS, AKA Blagoy Petrov Alexiev, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, The United States, official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-55688
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2017 
    
    Filed October 3, 2017
    Brian Alexis, Pro Se
    David A. DeJute, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jessica O. Cheh, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA—-Office of .the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Raymond Joseph Fuentes, Attorney, Fuentes & McNally, LLP, Glendale, CA, for Defendant-Appellee County of Los An-geles
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brian Alexis, AKA Blagoy Petrov Ale-xiev, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from defendants’ alleged failure to investigate and prosecute an attempted murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations. Ventura Mobilehome Cmtys. Owners Ass’n v. City of San Buenaventura, 371 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Alexis’ action as time-barred because the statute of limitations defense for his claims appears on the face of his complaint. See Joblan v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980) (district court may dismiss a claim “[i]f the running of the statute is apparent on the face of the complaint” and the assertions of the complaint do not permit a showing that the statute was tolled); see also Sharkey v. O’Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2015) • (California’s three-year statute of limitations for actions based upon liabilities created by statute applies to claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act); Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating that California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to § 1983 claim, and claim “accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir. 1991) (forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to Bivens claim).

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