Gretchen V. Schulze; Michael F. Schulze v. Cindy Maglasang;

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).
08-16041
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRETCHEN V. SCHULZE; MICHAEL
F. SCHULZE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CINDY MAGLASANG; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16041
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00490-EFS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gretchen V. Schulze and Michael F. Schulze appeal pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in their action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
FILED
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-16041 2
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that
defendants conspired to present false evidence at Mr. Schulze’s criminal forfeiture
trial and disclosed to the press evidence falsely implicating Ms. Schulze. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment,
Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), and for abuse of
discretion the denial of a request to modify a scheduling order, Zivkovic v. S. Cal.
Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on Ms.
Schulze’s claims because they are time-barred and not subject to equitable tolling.
See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-7 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury
claims); Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 408-10 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that
the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations applies in Bivens actions);
Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that the forum
state’s provision on equitable tolling applies in Bivens actions); Office of Haw.
Affairs v. State, 133 P.3d 767, 789 (Haw. 2006) (describing requirements for
equitable tolling under Hawai’i law).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mr. Schulze’s
claims because defendants are entitled to absolute immunity. See Imbler v.

-- 2 of 3 --

08-16041 3
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976) (holding that prosecutors are entitled to
absolute immunity for conduct associated with presenting the state’s case);
McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 584 F.3d 1129, 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing
that law enforcement officers are immune from liability even for perjured
testimony).
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the
Schulzes’ motion to extend by ninety days the deadline for responding to
defendants’ summary judgment motion because the Schulzes failed to show good
cause for the requested extension of time. See Zivkovic, 302 F.3d at 1087.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --