Noel Keith Watkins v. Spears;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOEL KEITH WATKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SPEARS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16784
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01343-TLN-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Noel Keith Watkins appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
that defendants failed to protect him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of an action as barred by
FILED
DEC 17 2015
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 2 --

the applicable statute of limitations, Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir.
1999), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Watkins’ action as time-barred
because, even with the benefit of statutory tolling due to incarceration, Watkins
failed to file his action within the applicable statute of limitations. See Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 352.1(a) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury
claims; two-year tolling period due to incarceration); Canatella v. Van De Kamp,
486 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2007) (forum state’s personal injury statute of
limitations and tolling laws apply to § 1983 actions; federal law determines when a
civil rights claim accrues, which is “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to
know of the injury which is the basis of the action” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)). Moreover, Watkins failed to show that he was entitled to
equitable tolling. See Fink, 192 F.3d at 916 (three-pronged test for equitable
tolling in California).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
14-16784 2

-- 2 of 2 --