N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KENNETH JONES,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a Gove rnm e nt Entity ; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-55921 D.C . No. 3:20-c v-01989-GPC -DEB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gonz a lo P. C urie l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 17, 2023 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON, C LIFTON, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . Ke nne th Jone s (Jone s) a

ppe a ls the dism issa l of his a c tion unde r 42 U.S.C
. §§ 1983 a nd 2000d a ga inst theC ounty of San Die go, the Alpine She riff’ s De pa rtm e nt, the C ity of San Die go, a nd the San Die g o Polic e De pa rtm e nt. The 

# FIL ED
N OV 28 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* 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.

* * 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).distric t c o urt rule d tha t Jone s’ s a c tion wa s tim e -barre d a nd tha t he wa s not e ntitle d to e q uita b le tolling. 1 W e re vie w the de nia l of e quita ble tolling for a

n a buse of disc re tion. Se e Le ong v . Potte r , 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th C ir. 2003). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. Jone s’ s c a

use of a c t ion a c c rue d in M arc h, 2018. Se eBe lanus v . C lark , 796 F.3d 1021, 1025 (9th C ir. 2015) (obse rving tha t a c a use of a c tion a c c rue s unde r § 1983 “ whe n the pla intiff knows or ha s re a son to know of the injury tha t is theba sis of the a c tion” ) (c ita

tions omitte d). Jone s’ s a c t ion, file d se ve n m onths a fte r the lim ita tions pe riod e xpire d, wa s untim e ly
. Se eC a l. C ode C iv. P. § 335.1 (two-ye ar sta tute of lim ita

tions in C a lifornia

for batte ry

a c tions). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing e quita ble tolling. Jone s wa s not e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling for his inc arc e ration be c a use he wa s not inc a rc e rate d whe n his c la im

a c c rue d. Se eJ

one s v . Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 928 (9th C ir. 2004) (e xpla ining tha t the “ touc hstone ” for a

pply ing C a l ifornia ’ s tolling provisions to inc arc e rate d individuals is “ a c tua l, uninte rrupte d inc arc e ration” ); se e also C a l. C ode C i v. Proc . § 352.1(a) (“ If a pe rson e ntitle d

to bring a

n a c tion . . . is,

1 B e c a u se the distric t c ourt de c ide d tha t Jone s’ s a c tion wa s tim e -barre d, it de c line d to a ddre ss whe the r Jone s sta te d a pla usible c la im
. 2at the

time thec auseof ac tion ac c rue d, im prisone d on a

c rim ina l c ha

rge , or in
e xe c ution of these nte nc e of a c rim ina l c ourt for a

te rm le s s tha

n life , the tim e of that disa bility is not pa rt of the tim e lim ite d for the c om m e nc e m e nt of the
a c tion[.] ” ) (e m

pha sis a dde d). Jone s wa s not e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling for m

isc a lc ulating thelim i tations pe riod. Se e Saint Franc is Me m’l Hosp. v

. State De p’t of Pub. He alth , 59 C a l. App. 5th 965, 969 (2021) (“ [I] t is not obje c tive ly re a sona ble for an attorne y

to m iss a de a dline to file a

pe tition due to a

fa ilure to a

ppre c iate e a sily

a s c e rta ina

ble le ga l princ iple s. . . .” ). Fina lly , Jone s doe s not dispute the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t his a c tion would be untim e ly

e ve n if the distric t c ourt tolle d the lim ita tions pe riod for his stroke , hospita liz ation, a

nd re h a bilita tion. In a ny e ve nt, Jone s fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts de m onstra

ting re a sona

ble n e ss a nd good fa ith. Se eMc

D o nald v . Ante lopeValle

y C omm. C oll. Dist. , 194 P.3d 1026, 1033 (C a l. 2008) (obse rving tha t , unde r C a lifornia la w, e quita ble tolling re quire s “ a

showing of thre e e le m e nts: time ly notic e , a nd la c k of pre

judic e , to thede fe nda

nt, a nd re a sona

ble and good fa ith
c onduc t on thepa

rt of the pla intiff” ) (c ita

tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks
om i tte d). AFFIRM E D.
3