Robert Jesse Hill v. ISAIAH GARRISON, Community Corrections Officer, Washington State Department of…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT JESSE HILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ISAIAH GARRISON, Community
Corrections Officer, Washington State
Department of Corrections; ANGELA
STRANGER, Community Corrections
Supervisor, Washington State Department of
Corrections; MAC PEREY, Community
Corrections Division Acting Secretary,
Washington State Department of
Corrections; VIRGINIA MASON, Hearing
Officer, Washington State Department of
Corrections; STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Former
Secretary, Washington State Department of
Corrections; CHERYL STRANGE,
Secretary, Washington State Department of
Corrections; JOHN DOE, 1, Officer, SCORE
Jail; JOHN DOE, 2, Officer, SCORE Jail;
JOHN DOE, 3, Officer, SCORE Jail; JOHN
DOE, 4, Officer, SCORE Jail; JOHN DOE,
5, Officer, SCORE Jail; JOHN DOE, 6,
Officer, SCORE Jail; JOHN DOE, 7, Officer,
SCORE Jail; JOHN DOE, 8, Officer,
SCORE Jail; PENNY BARTLETT, Director,
SCORE Jail (2018); SCORE JAIL;
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
No. 22-35822
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05451-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
FEB 27 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 22-35822
22-35823
OF CORRECTIONS; TACOMA TOWING,
LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
ROBERT JESSE HILL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LISA FISCH, Administrative Assistant;
ANDREW STABITZ, Security Consultant,
Washington State Senate; SARAH
BANNISTER, Secretary, Washington State
Senate; SEAN HARTSOCK, Security
Consultant, Washington State House of
Representatives; KEVIN PIERCE, Director,
Legislative Support Services; LAURIE
JINKINS, Speaker of the House; BERNARD
DEAN, Clerk of the House; MEAGAN
ARNDT, Administrative Assistant;
SUZETTE COOPER, Administrative
Assistant; ASHLEY JACKSON,
Administrative Assistant; COCO CHANG,
Administrative Assistant; SHARRA
FINLEY, Administrative Assistant;
EGGLESTON, Trooper, Washington State
Patrol; JOHN DOE, 1, Sergeant, Washington
State Patrol,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-35823
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05320-RSM
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

-- 2 of 4 --

3 22-35822
22-35823
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
In Appeal No. 22-35822, Washington state prisoner Robert Jesse Hill
appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a
claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations when he was
detained in jail for violation of conditions of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hill’s action as barred by the three-year
statute of limitations, Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2), because his post-sentencing
detention did not toll the limitations period. See Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.190
(providing for tolling when, “at the time the cause of action accrued,” the plaintiff
was “imprisoned on a criminal charge prior to sentencing”); Rivas v. Overlake
Hosp. Med. Ctr., 189 P.3d 753, 755-56 Wash. 2008) (en banc) (plaintiff must show
that tolling requirement existed when cause of action accrued).
In Appeal No. 22-35823, Hill appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 22-35822
22-35823
action challenging a condition of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration
because Hill failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)
(setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
and 60(b)); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --