Washie Ouma v. TYLER ASHER, President of SAFECO Insurance;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WASHIE OUMA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TYLER ASHER, President of SAFECO
Insurance; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-36077
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01084-HZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Washie Ouma appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his diversity action alleging that defendants engaged in fraud during prior state
court litigation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
a dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations and under Federal Rule of Civil
* 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
AUG 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-36077
Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ouma’s action as time-barred because
Ouma failed to file this action within two years of the alleged fraud, and Ouma
failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that equitable tolling applies. See
Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110 (two-year statute of limitations for fraud claims); Torre v.
Brickey, 278 F.3d 917, 919 (9th Cir. 2002) (courts apply the forum state’s
substantive law when subject matter is based on diversity of citizenship, except to
the extent inconsistent with federal law); see also Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S.
408, 418 (2005) (requirements of equitable tolling).
Contrary to Ouma’s contention, the district court was not required by
Ouma’s pro se status to construe Ouma’s “Notice to File Civil Suit” as meeting the
requirements for commencing an action, which are the filing of a complaint and
service of process. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.020.
We reject as without merit Ouma’s contention that the district court made
errors in its recitation of the facts of this case.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --