Case Name: Maiga HRALIMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-10
Citations: 446 F. App'x 880
Docket Number: No. 10-16931
Parties: Maiga HRALIMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 880–880

Head Matter:
Maiga HRALIMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-16931.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
Filed Aug. 10, 2011.
Maiga Hralima, Carson City, NV, pro se.
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. 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
Maiga Hralima, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was forcibly medicated in 2002 and 2003. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hralima's action because his § 1983 claims, filed more than two years after his causes of action accrued, were barred by the statute of limitations. See Nev.Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(e); Taylor v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 711-12 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims are governed by the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury claims).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend where amendment would be futile. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995).
Hralima's remaining contentions, including those concerning tolling, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.