N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
STEVEN L. FAGER ; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. OLYM PIC PENINSULA NAR C O TIC S ENFOR C EM ENT TEAM ,

De fe nda nt,
and C LALLAM C OUNTY; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-35133 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-05940-R JB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt J. B ry an, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 12, 2017 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : D.W . NELSON, M . SM ITH, a n d C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . 

# F IL ED
J UN 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pla intiffs-Appe l la nts Ste ve n Fa g e r, Tim othy Fa ge r, C ynthia

Fa ge r, Kathle e n Whe lle r, Gary

C orm an, a

nd Te d De B ray

a ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing the i r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la im s unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6) a nd de c lining to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic t ion ove r the ir re m a ining sta te la w c la im s. W e hav e jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291 a

nd re vie w de
novo a dism i ssa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im unde r R

u le 12(b)(6). Odom v

. Mic rosoft C

orp. , 486 F.3d 541, 545 (9th C ir. 2007). W e a lso re v ie w de novo whe the r a c la im is ba rre d by the sta tute of lim ita

tions, but “ [t] he que stion of when
a c la im a c c rue s is a fa c t inte nsive inquiry , a nd we have he ld tha

t a distric t c ourt’ s fa c t ua l finding c o nc e rning whe n a c la im a c c rue s is e ntitle d to de fe re ntia l re vie w.” Pounc il v . Tilton , 704 F.3d 568, 574 (9th C i r. 2012) (quoting He lls C any on Pre

s. C ounc il v . U.S. Fore

st Se rv . , 403 F.3d 683, 691 (9th C ir. 2005)). For thefollowing
re a s ons, we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t the Pla i ntiffs-Appe l la

nts’ Fourth Am e ndm e nt, due proc e ss, a nd wrongful discha

rge c la im s we re ba

rre d by W a shington’ s thre e -y e ar statute of lim ita tions for pe rsona l injury

c la im s . Se e R C W 4 .16.080; Morale

s v . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 214 F.3d 1151, 1153 (9th C ir. 2000) (“ Ac tions brought pursua nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a

re gove rne d by

the sta te sta tute s of limita

tions for pe rsona l injury

a c tions.” ). Eve n

a ssum i ng e q

u ita ble
2tolling a

pplie s, it c annot sa

ve the se c la im s. The Nove m be r 2011 m otion to suppre ss file d in sta

te c ourt a l le ge d the sa

m e fa c ts a s the fe de ra l c om pla int, showing the

c la im s a c c rue d outside of the thre e -y e ar lim ita tions pe riod. Se e W allac ev . K

ato , 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007) (holding tha t fe de ra l la

w de te rm ine s whe n a c a use of a c tion under § 1983 a c c rue s a nd the sta tute of lim ita

tions be gins to run); K n ox v . Dav is , 260 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th C ir. 2001) (“Unde r fe de ra l la w, ‘ a
c la im a c c rue s whe n the pla intiff knows or ha s re a s on to know of the injury whic h is theba sis of thea c tion.’ ” (quoting Tw oRiv e r s v . Le w is , 174 F.3d 987, 992 (9th C ir. 1999))); se ealso Boston v . K itsap C ty
. , 852 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th C ir. 2017) (c onc l uding tha

t W a shington’ s c la im s pre se ntm e nt sta t ute doe s not toll the

sta tute of lim ita tions for § 1983 c la im s). Sim ila rly , the c o ntinuing viola

tions doc t rine
c annot m ake the se c la i m s tim e l y , e ve n if it a pplie s. 1 Se eDouglas v . C al. De p’t of Youth Auth ., 271 F.3d 812, 823–24 (9th C ir. 2001) (c onc luding thec ontinuing viola tions doc t rine re q uire s tha t a pla i ntiff be e xpose d to a

n a lle ge dly

wrongful

1 The distric t c ourt a lso c orre c tly c onc lude d tha

t Pla intiffs-Appe lla

nts’ due proc e ss c la im s a

re ba rre d by the Supre m e C ourt’ s holding in Graham v

. C onnor , 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Se eAc tion Apartment Ass’n, Inc . v . Santa Monic a Re nt C ontrol Bd. , 509 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ [U] nde r the Graham rule , a substa ntive due proc e ss c l a im

will bepre e m

pte d if the a sse rte d substa ntive right c an be vindic ate d unde r a diffe re nt— and m ore pre c ise

— c onstitutiona l rubric .” ). 3polic y during the l im ita tions pe riod for a

c la im to be tim e ly ), a me nde d , 271 F.3d 910 (9th C i r. 2001). 2. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly dismisse d the Pla intiffs-Appe lla nts’ fe de ra l
m a lic ious prose c ution c la im s for fa ilure to sta te a c la im
. Se eImble r

v . Pac htman , 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976) (holding tha t prose c utors ha

ve a bsoluteim

m unity for de c isions “ i ntim ate ly

a ssoc iate d with thejudic i a l pha se of the c rim ina l proc e ss” ). The Pla intiffs-Appe lla

nts do not c ha lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of the ir
m a lic ious prose c ution c la im s a g a inst theprose c utor-de fe nda nts, and the ir
c om pla i nt did not alle ge m a lic ious prose c ution c la im s a ga inst thenon-prose c utor de fe nda nts. 2 3. B e c a

use Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts a gre e tha

t the ir a p p e a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the ir sta

te la w c la im s is dep e n de nt upon the ir a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t
c ourt e rre d by

dism issing the ir fe de ra l c l a im s, we a ffirm the dismissa l of the sta te la w c la im s a s we ll. Se eAc ri v . Varian Assoc s., Inc
. , 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th C ir. 1997) (e n ba

nc ) (“ [I] n the usua l c a se in whic h a ll fe de ra l -lawc la im s a re e lim inate d be fore tria l, the ba la

nc e of fa c tors . . . will point towa rd de c lining to e xe rc ise

2 C orm an’ s m a lic i ous prose c ution c l a im is a lso ba rre d by the sta tute of lim ita tions. Se e C

line v . Bruse tt , 661 F.2d 108, 110 (9th C ir. 1981) (sta ting tha t a m a lic ious prose c ution c la im a c c rue s whe n “ the c a se ha s be e n te rm inate d in fa vor of the a c c use d ” ). 4jurisdic tion ove r the re m a ining sta te -law c l a im s.” (a lte ration in origina l ) (quoting C arne gie –Me llon Univ . v . C

ohill , 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988))). AFFIRM E D.

5