Gary D. Easley v. County of El Dorado Probation Department;

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, and therefore, denies Easley’s request for oral argument.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY D. EASLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF EL DORADO
PROBATION DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15608
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01432-MCE-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Gary D. Easley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging state and federal claims arising out of his
FILED
JUL 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-15608 2
arrests and prosecutions for various criminal offenses. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim,
Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir. 2001), and for an
abuse of discretion conclusions as to the applicability of equitable tolling, Huynh v.
Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992, 1003-04 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the statute of
limitations was not equitably tolled on Easley’s § 1983 claims because Easley
failed to establish that he acted with diligence and good faith in filing suit after his
prior, factually related action was dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Ervin v.
County of Los Angeles, 848 F.2d 1018, 1019-20 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth
three-factor test for equitable tolling and concluding that plaintiff’s unwarranted
delay of more than a year in filing her federal civil rights claim after filing a tort
action in state court was neither reasonable nor in good faith).
The district court properly dismissed Easley’s state law claims because
Easley failed to timely present them before filing suit as required by the California
Government Claims Act. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 911.2(a), 945.4, 950.2; Shirk v.
Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 164 P.3d 630, 634 (Cal. 2007) (timely claims presentation
is a condition precedent to, and an element of, any claim against a public entity or
its employees). Denial of further leave to amend these claims was not an abuse of

-- 2 of 3 --

11-15608 3
discretion because it was clear that Easley could not plead such compliance. See
Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990, 992 (9th Cir. 2009) (no abuse of discretion
in denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile).
Easley’s remaining contentions, including with respect to the doctrines of
substantial compliance, waiver, and estoppel, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --