Case Name: Raymond A. ROLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melodee ARMFIELD, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-27
Citations: 594 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 14-35056
Parties: Raymond A. ROLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melodee ARMFIELD, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 430–431

Head Matter:
Raymond A. ROLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melodee ARMFIELD, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-35056.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
Filed Feb. 27, 2015.
Raymond A. Roles, Boise, ID, pro se.
Kirtlan G. Naylor, General, Naylor & Hales, P.C., Boise, ID, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Idaho state prisoner Raymond A. Roles appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his right to due process in connection with a disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004) (dismissal on the basis of a statute of limitations); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Roles's due process claim as barred by the statute of limitations because Roles filed this action more than two years after his claim against defendant Armfield arose. See Idaho Code § 5-219(4) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir.2007) (forum state's personal injury statute of limitations and tolling laws apply to § 1983 actions; federal law determines when a civil rights claim accrues, which is when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action). We reject Roles's arguments concerning accrual and the continuing violation doctrine.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Roles's motion for relief from judgment because Roles failed to establish grounds warranting reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and factors for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.