Tanya Latrice Lawrence v. BERRY, Doctor;

12-16118Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit19.02.2013

Gesamter Gesetzestext

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Lawrence consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TANYA LATRICE LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BERRY, Doctor; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16118
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01936-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 11, 2013***
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Tanya Latrice Lawrence appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
FILED
FEB 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-16118 2
deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs as barred by the statute of
limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205
(9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lawrence’s action as time-barred
because all claims accrued more than four years before Lawrence filed her
complaint. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 352.1(a) (two-year statute of
limitations for personal injury claims; limitations period may be tolled for an
additional two years for prisoners); Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (9th
Cir. 2001) (§ 1983 actions are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations;
a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which
is the basis of the action; continuing impact from past violations does not cause a
claim to accrue anew).
Lawrence’s motion requesting a “withdrawal and abeyance,” filed on July
27, 2012, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.