Case Name: Robert W. HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-19
Citations: 498 F. App'x 695
Docket Number: No. 11-15133
Parties: Robert W. HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 498
Pages: 695–695

Head Matter:
Robert W. HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15133.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 19, 2012.
Robert W. Holland, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
Lori Lea Voepel, Jones Skelton & Ho-chuli, PLC, Daniel Patrick Schaack, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Robert W. Holland, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing as time-barred his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations in connection with defendants' collection and alleged misapplication of traffic offense fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Holland's claims as time-barred because all claims accrued more than two years before Holland filed his complaint. See Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 12-821 (one-year statute of limitations for actions against any public entity or public employee); TwoRivers, 174 F.3d at 991-92 (for § 1983 claims, federal courts apply the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury claims, which begin to accrue "when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury"); see also Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir.2001) (mere continuing impact from past violations not actionable).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.