Court Opinion

ID: 9889879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 18:00:38.383752+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:48.935121
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 11 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEVIN ANDRICH,                                  No.    22-15268

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                2:20-cv-01237-GMS-MTM
 v.

ALLISTER ADEL, in her individual,          MEMORANDUM*
supervisory and official capacities;
COUNTY OF MARICOPA, a public entity;
JEFFREY DUVENDACK, in his individual
and supervisory capacities; KRISTIN
NORDEEN, in her individual and
supervisory capacities; HEATHER L.
KIRKA, in her individual and supervisory
capacities, also named as Heather Kirka;
JOSE GARCIA, in his individual and
supervisory capacities; DAVID BECK, in his
individual and supervisory capacities;
STATE BAR OF ARIZONA; STACY
LYNN SHUMAN, in her individual and
supervisory capacities; MARK BRNOVICH,
Attorney General; MICHAEL GINGOLD, in
his individual and supervisory capacities;
STATE OF ARIZONA, a public entity,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Arizona
                 G. Murray Snow, Chief District Judge, Presiding

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                            Submitted October 11, 2023**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Devin Andrich appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his Third

Amended Complaint. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them

only as necessary to explain our decision.

                                            I

      The statute of limitations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is equal to the statute of

limitations for a personal injury action in the forum state. Butler v. Nat’l Cmty.

Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014). Arizona imposes a two-

year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542. A

cause of action accrues when a plaintiff learns of his injury and who inflicted it.

Bibeau v. Pac. N.W. Rsch. Found. Inc., 188 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 1999)

(quoting United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 122 (1979)). A plaintiff must be

diligent in discovering these critical facts. Id.

      Andrich’s cause of action accrued on December 11, 2017, when he filed his

petition for post-conviction relief without the required documents because the

defendants allegedly possessed his laptop and hard drive or knew where they were.

      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

                                            2
At that point, Andrich knew that he was injured, and a reasonably diligent

investigation would have revealed who had caused the injury. See Oracle Am.,

Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., 971 F.3d 1042, 1047-48 (9th Cir. 2020).

Andrich’s complaint in this action was not filed until June 22, 2020, more than two

years after the cause of action accrued. Accordingly, the suit is barred by the

statute of limitations.

                                         II

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Andrich’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(c)(3); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3