Charles James Chatman v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Political Subdivision of the State of California;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES JAMES CHATMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, Political
Subdivision of the State of California; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17076
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00050-MMC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Charles James Chatman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JS/Research 08-17076 2
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A on statute of limitations grounds. We have 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 Chatman’s claims because they are
time-barred. See id. at 927 (explaining that the applicable statute of limitations for
§ 1983 claims is the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims,
and setting forth California’s statute of limitations); Johnson v. California, 207
F.3d 650, 654 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that, under California law, the limitations
period is tolled for two years for prisoners serving less than a life sentence).
Chatman’s contention that the action is not time-barred because he submitted an
amended complaint raising the same claims in a prior action is unpersuasive.
Chatman’s requests for judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --