Case Name: Hassan ABPIKAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwayne SANCHEZ, DHS/ICE Special Federal Agent; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-20
Citations: 673 F. App'x 781
Docket Number: No. 14-16735
Parties: Hassan ABPIKAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwayne SANCHEZ, DHS/ICE Special Federal Agent; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 781–782

Head Matter:
Hassan ABPIKAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwayne SANCHEZ, DHS/ICE Special Federal Agent; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-16735
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 11, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed January 20, 2017
Hassan Abpikar, Pro Se
James A. Scharf, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hassan Abpikar appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss his civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We affirm.
' Like the district court, we conclude that the action was not timely filed under the applicable two-year statute of limitations, based on Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 335.1. Abpikar was not "imprisoned on a criminal charge" in order to qualify him for statutory tolling under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 352.1(a). The terms of his release, even if they amounted to house arrest, did not so significantly impair his ability to act. Notably, he pursued other litigation within that time. See Deutch v. Hoffman, 165 Cal.App.3d 152, 156, 211 Cal.Rptr. 319 (1985). Additionally, he also did not qualify for equitable tolling, as he did not demonstrate that an extraordinary circumstance stood in the way of filing his complaint within the two-year limitations period. See Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1052 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Lastly, his complaint did not allege any tort claims under California law that might have been subject to a three-year limitations period. The claims were all federal constitutional claims under Bivens, subject to a two-year limitations period.
The requests for judicial notice by Abpi-kar, filed January 20, 2015, and by Defendants, in the answering brief at 6 n.2, are granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.