Case ID: f-appx_362/html/0860-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ernest Lee COX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gregory HARRIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-16252.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
    
      Ernest Lee Cox, Jr., lone, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, 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

Ernest Lee Cox, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action as time-barred because Cox filed suit after the applicable statute of limitations and statutory tolling period had expired. See id. at 1132-33 (explaining that a one-year statute of limitations applies to any cause of action that was more than one-year old as of January 1, 2003). Moreover, Cox was not eligible for equitable tolling under California’s tolling provisions. See Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth applicable tolling criteria).

Cox’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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