Rafael Ferguson v. D. TURNER, C/O for CDCR;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAFAEL FERGUSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. TURNER, C/O for CDCR; et al.,
Defendant-Appellees,
and
M. VILLA, Sergeant for CDCR; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 18-17238
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00182-AWI-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rafael Ferguson appeals pro se from the district
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-17238
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Eighth
Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ferguson’s claims against the
Calipatria State Prison defendants as barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
See Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014)
(§ 1983 claims are governed by forum state’s statute of limitations for personal
injury claims); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of
limitations for personal injury claims).
The district court properly dismissed Ferguson’s remaining claims because
Ferguson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings
are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient
to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --