Carl E. Brown, as Next Friend of James E. Carter v. Corrections Corporation of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARL E. BROWN, as Next Friend of
James E. Carter,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-35423
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00001-SLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alaska state prisoner Carl E. Brown, as Next Friend of deceased former
Alaska state prisoner James E. Carter, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing this action alleging violations of state law in connection with
FILED
DEC 08 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Carter’s medical treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044,
1047 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed the breach of contract and negligence
claims as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. See Alaska Stat.
§ 09.10.053 (three-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions);
§ 09.10.070(a) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Nw.
Airlines, Inc. v. Camacho, 296 F.3d 787, 789 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] federal
court sitting in diversity is bound to apply the statute of limitations of the forum
jurisdiction.”).
However, the district court improperly dismissed the wrongful death claim
because Brown filed the complaint on September 26, 2012, which was within the
two-year statute of limitations. See Alaska Stat. § 09.55.580(a) (two-year statute of
limitations for wrongful death actions); Mullin v. State, 996 P.2d 737, 740 (Alaska
Ct. App. 2000) (“[T]he relevant event is the filing of the [complaint] itself–even if
the prisoner fails to accompany the [complaint] with either a filing fee or an
application for reduced fee.”). Moreover, because the district court dismissed all
claims as barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, it did not address whether
Brown had standing to assert claims on Carter’s behalf. Accordingly, we vacate
13-35423 2

-- 2 of 3 --

the dismissal of the wrongful death claim and remand for the district court to
consider the standing issue in the first instance.
We reject Brown’s contention that the negligence and breach of contract
claims are not barred by the statute of limitations because they are inextricably
intertwined with the wrongful death claim.
Brown’s “motion to supplement point of appeal,” filed on June 17, 2013, is
denied as unnecessary.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
13-35423 3

-- 3 of 3 --