Robert W. Holland v. City of Phoenix;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT W. HOLLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PHOENIX; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15133
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01768-ROS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
NOV 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15133 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --