N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAM ISI JERM AINE C A LLOWAY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R ANGEL, Se rge ant; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-17245 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-00193-GSA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gary S. Austin, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, R AW LINSON, a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Jam isi Je rm a ine C a l lowa

y , a C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from the d istric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a rising from a 

# FIL ED DEC 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** C a llowa

y c onse n te d to proc e e d

be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).2003 a lle ge d e xc e ssive forc e inc ide n t. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C .

§ 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Hamilton v . Brow n , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th C ir. 2011) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); C holla Re ady

Mix , Inc . v . C iv i sh , 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th C ir. 2004) (dismissa l on theba s is of a sta tute of lim ita

tions). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C a llowa

y ’ s a c tion be c a

use , e ve n with the b e ne fit of sta

tutory tolling due

to inc arc e ra tion, C a l lowa y fa ile d to file his a c tion within the

a pplic a ble sta tute of lim i tations a

nd fa ile d to de m onstra

te he wa s e ntitle d to e quita

ble tolling. Se e C a l. C iv. Proc . C ode §§ 335.1, 352.1 (two-ye ar sta tute of lim ita

tions for pe rsona l injury

c la i m s; two-y e ar tolling period due to inc a rc e ra tion); C

anate lla v . Van De

K a mp , 486 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th C ir. 2007) (forum sta te ’ s pe rsona l injury

sta tute of lim ita

tions a n d tolling la

w s a pply to § 1983 a c tions); se e also Fink v . She dle r , 192 F.3d 911, 916-17 (9th C ir. 1999) (thre e -pronge d te st for e quita ble tolling in C a l ifornia ; pla intiff wa s not e n title d to e quita ble tolling where “ a c tions we re not a re a s ona ble and good fa ith e ffort to pursue his c la im s in a

n a lte rnat e forum

or c a s e ” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d)); Thomas v . Gilliland , 115 C a l. R

ptr. 2d 520, 524 (C t. App. 2002) (“ In the a bse nc e of a

sta tute , a pa rty c annot de duc t

from the pe riod of the sta tute of lim ita tions a pplic a ble to his c a se the tim e c o nsum e d by the pe nde nc y

of a n a c tion 1 4 - 1 7 2 4 5 2in whic h he sought to ha ve the m atte r a djudic ate d, but whic h wa s dismi sse d without pre

judic e to him . ” (c i tation a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). W e re je c t C a llowa

y ’ s c onte ntions tha

t his c la im s a

re not tim e -barre d due to his pro sesta

t us, or be c a

use of his a l le ge d inc a

pa c ita tion a fte r the sta

tute of lim ita tions ha d a lre a dy

e xpire d. AFFIRM E D .

1 4 - 1 7 2 4 5 3