Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0527-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joel R. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis LEROUX, 7699; Stephanie D. Low, Maricopa County Attorney Prosecutor, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15780
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 21, 2017
    Joel R. Garcia, Pro Se
    Clarence E. Matherson, Jr., Assistant Counsel, Phoenix City Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Dennis Leroux
    Maxine S. Mak, Esquire, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Civil Services Division, Joseph Isaac Vigil, Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Division of County Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Stephanie D. Low
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joel R. Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging federal and state law violations related to his arrest and pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a determination that an action is time-barred, Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly determined that Garcia’s action was time-barred because all claims against defendants accrued more than two years before Garcia filed his complaint. See Ariz, Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821 (one-year statute of limitations for actions against any public entity or public employee); TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991-92 (9th Cir. 1999) (for § 1983 claims, federal courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, which begin to accrue “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury”).

Garcia has waived his right to challenge defendants’ discovery responses and objections to his deposition notices. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A stipulation or the withdrawal of an objection is tantamount to a waiver of an issue for appeal.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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