Case Name: Shane D. WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SALEM, OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-25
Citations: 473 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 11-35314
Parties: Shane D. WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SALEM, OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
Shane D. WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SALEM, OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-35314.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 25, 2012.
Shane D. Willis, Pendleton, OR, pro se.
C. Randall Tosh, Kenneth Scott Montoya, Esquire, City of Salem Legal Department, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Oregon state prisoner Shane D. Willis appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing as time-barred his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging constitutional violations arising from a traffic stop. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Willis's action as time-barred. See Or. Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Douglas, 567 F.3d at 1109 (for § 1983 claims, courts apply the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury claims); see also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 391, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) ("The cause of action accrues even though the full extent of the injury is not then known or predictable." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Willis's remaining contentions, including those contained in his letter received on August 29, 2011, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.