Case Name: Robert C. DENHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. CEASE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-03
Citations: 670 F. App'x 528
Docket Number: No. 15-35105
Parties: Robert C. DENHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. CEASE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 528–529

Head Matter:
Robert C. DENHAM, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. CEASE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35105
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 3, 2016
Robert C. Denham, Jr., Pro Se.
Robert B. Binger, Esquire, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert C. Denham, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his 1973 state conviction for second degree assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal based on the applicable statute of limitations. Fink v. She dler, 192 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Denham's action as barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations. See Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080 (three-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 761-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (a § 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that forms the basis of the action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of the state court documents from Denham's criminal ease. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-90 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.