Case Name: Jennifer GALBERTH; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE of Washington; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-04
Citations: 143 F. App'x 767
Docket Number: No. 04-36054
Parties: Jennifer GALBERTH; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. STATE of Washington; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 767–768

Head Matter:
Jennifer GALBERTH; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. STATE of Washington; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-36054.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
Jennifer Galberth, Seattle, WA, Pro se.
Steven G. Phillips, Esq., Law Offices of Jay Carey, Arlington, WA, for Defendants—Appellees.
Carl Livingston, Seattle, WA, Pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The Clerk is directed to change the caption to reflect that the State of Washington is also a Defendant—Appellee.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jennifer Galberth and her daughter, Savanna Galberth, appeal pro se the district court's judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the State of Washington and various individuals violated appellants' civil rights through their participation in a Washington state custody case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045, 1062 n. 14 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly determined that appellants' federal claims, filed more than five years after the state court decision, were barred by a three-year statute of limitations. See Wash. Rev.Code § 4.16.080(2); RK Ventures, Inc., 307 F.3d at 1058 (applying state statute of limitations to claims brought under sections 1983 and 1985).
Appellants' request for oral argument is denied.
Appellants' motion for sanctions is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.