The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
10-56910•Frederick James Staves v. the City of Los Angeles, a Municipal Corporation;
10-56910Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApr 26, 2012
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FREDERICK JAMES STAVES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a
Municipal Corporation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56910
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00967-CJC-
MLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Frederick James Staves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) on statute of limitations grounds. We have
FILED
APR 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
10-56910 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393
F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Staves’s claims as time-barred because
Staves filed this action over nine years after the claims accrued. See Canatella v.
Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2007) (civil rights claims that
were more than one-year old as of January 1, 2003 are governed by California’s
previous one-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Pincay v.
Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2001) (the statute of limitations for civil
RICO actions is four years). Further, Staves failed to establish that he used due
diligence to uncover the allegedly concealed facts. See Volk v. D.A. Davidson &
Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1415-16 (9th Cir. 1987).
Staves’s remaining contentions, including that the district court abused its
discretion by denying his motion for a default judgment, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.