Case ID: f-appx_357/html/0958-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Betty HARMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF FRESNO; Chief Deputy Bob Hensel; Det. Ryan Gilbert, City of Fresno; David Newton; Doug Goertzen; David Belluomini; and Henry M. Monreal, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-17427.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 2009.
    Filed Dec. 16, 2009.
    Emmanuel Chukwuemeka Akudinobi, Akudinobi & Ikonte, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael Linden, Esquire, Rosemary T. McGuire, Esquire, Weakley, Arendt & McGuire LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: O’ SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Betty Harmon appeals the district court’s order dismissing, with prejudice, her complaint alleging federal constitutional and state tort claims based on the City of Fresno and County of Fresno’s refusal to investigate her mother’s death.

Harmon’s federal and state claims are barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury. See Cal.Code Civ. Pro. § 335.1; TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir.1999). Her claims accrued when she had reason to know of her injury, which was no later than when she filed her first tort claims against the City of Fresno and County of Fresno in 2005 and those claims were denied. The defendants’ 2007 refusal to investigate was simply a repetition of their decision and was not a new violation. See RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045, 1061 (9th Cir.2002). Her claims should not be equitably tolled; she did not pursue an alternate remedy after filing her state tort claims in 2005, she merely continued to collect evidence to buttress her original claim. See Daviton v. Cohmbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131, 1136-37 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

Because Harmon’s claims are time-barred, we do not reach the merits of her claims.

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