N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EDWARD VINC ENT R

A Y, Jr., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AESAR B ASA; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-15657 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-02923-YGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d M arc h 15, 2016 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, LEAVY, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Edwa rd Vinc e nt R ay , Jr., a

C a lifornia

sta t e prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing due proc e s s a nd de fam ation c la im s. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Enlow

v . Sale m-K

e ize r Ye l low

C ab C o. , 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th



# FIL ED MAR 24 2016 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. ** 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).C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm .

The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on R a

y ’ s due proc e ss c la im s be c a

use R ay fa i le d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he file d his a c tion within the

sta tute of lim ita

tions. Se e C a l . C iv. Proc . C ode §§ 335.1 (two-y e ar statute of lim ita tions for pe rsona l injury

a c tions); 352.1(a

) sta tutory tolling due

to inc arc e ra tion not to e xc e e d two y e ars); K nox v . Dav is , 260 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (9th C ir. 2001) (for § 1983 c la im s, fe de ra l c o urts a pply the forum sta te ’ s pe rsona l injury sta

tute of lim ita

tions a nd a pply fe de ra l la

w to de te rm i ne a c c rua l; a

§ 1983 c la im

a c c rue s whe n the pla intiff knows or ha s re a son to know of the

injury that form s the ba sis of the a c tion). M ore o ve r, the distric t c ourt prope rly c o nc lude d tha t R ay wa s not e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling or e quita

ble e stoppe l, a

nd did not e s ta

blish a c ontinuing viola

tion of his rights. Se e Butle r v . N at’l C mty . Re naissanc e of C

al. , 766 F.3d 1191, 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2014) (e xpla ining tha

t fe de ra l c ourts borrow sta te la w e quita ble tolling provisions, unle ss the y are inc onsiste nt with fe de ra l la w, a n d se tting forth C a lifornia ’ s doc trine of e quita ble tolling); Luk

ov sk y v . C ity & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 535 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th C ir. 2008) (se tting forth C a lifornia ’ s e quita ble e stoppe l doc trine ); K nox , 260 F.3d a

t 1013 (disc ussing c o ntinuing viola tion doc trine ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on R a

y ’ s § 1983

1 5 - 1 5 6 5 7 2de fam at ion c la im a ga inst Philips be c a

use R ay fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r R ay did not re c e ive due proc e ss. S e e Mathe w

s v . Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319, 333-35 (1976) (due proc e ss re quire s notic e and a n opportunity

to be he ard; disc ussing fa c tors re le va nt for de te rm ining whe the r a dm inistra

tive proc e dure s sa

tisfy due proc e ss). W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). All pe nding re q

u e sts a re de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 1 5 6 5 7 3