Case Name: Harry A. BURNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-27
Citations: 256 F. App'x 940
Docket Number: No. 06-55604
Parties: Harry A. BURNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, RYMER Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 940–940

Head Matter:
Harry A. BURNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-55604.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 9, 2007.
Filed Nov. 27, 2007.
Lloyd Edward Tooks, Esq., Law Offices of Lloyd E. Tooks, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Beth L. Levine, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for DefendantAppellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, RYMER Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, District Judge.
The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The facts of this case are known to the parties.
Unlike Boyd v. U.S. Postal Service, 752 F.2d 410 (9th Cir.1985), the DEA litigated Burnett's claim for roughly seven years to a decision on the merits before the agency, and failed to affirmatively set forth statute of limitations as a defense in its first responsive pleading before the district court as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c). As a result, we conclude that the Government waived its timeliness objection.
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.