Case Name: Roland J. KRAMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-28
Citations: 35 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 01-16989; D.C. No. CV-01-20396-JF
Parties: Roland J. KRAMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 35
Pages: 667–667

Head Matter:
Roland J. KRAMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-16989.
D.C. No. CV-01-20396-JF.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2002 .
Decided May 28, 2002.
Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Roland J. Kramer appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 218 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
Kramer contends that the district court erred by dismissing his claims based on the statute of limitations because his pursuit of administrative remedies tolled the limitations period. We do not reach this issue because it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Delange v. Dutra Constr. Co., Inc., 183 F.3d 916, 919 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). Despite being granted leave to amend, Kramer failed to amend his complaint to plead any facts justifying the tolling of the statute of limitations.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.