Case Name: Tanya Latrice LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERRY, Doctor; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-19
Citations: 509 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 12-16118
Parties: Tanya Latrice LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERRY, Doctor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 509
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
Tanya Latrice LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERRY, Doctor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-16118.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2018.
Filed Feb. 19, 2013.
Tanya Latrice Lawrence, pro se.
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, 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
California state prisoner Tanya Latrice Lawrence appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs as barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lawrence's action as time-barred because all claims accrued more than four years before Lawrence filed her complaint. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 335.1, 352.1(a) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims; limitations period may be tolled for an additional two years for prisoners); Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2001) (§ 1983 actions are governed by the forum state's statute of limitations; a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action; continuing impact from past violations does not cause a claim to accrue anew).
Lawrence's motion requesting a "withdrawal and abeyance," filed on July 27, 2012, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.