Richard Kleinhammer v. City of Paso Robles;

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). Accordingly,
Kleinhammer’s request for oral argument is denied.
09-55296
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD KLEINHAMMER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PASO ROBLES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-55296
D.C. No. 8:06-cv-00798-JFW-JTL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Richard Kleinhammer, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se
from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and inverse
condemnation action alleging that the defendants improperly denied sewer service
to his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
FILED
JUN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-55296 2
a district court’s decision on equitable tolling where, as here, the facts are
undisputed. Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2000).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants.
Kleinhammer failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not
defendants had notice that he intended to pursue his claims and whether or not his
conduct was reasonable during the applicable period. See Fink v. Shedler, 192
F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Under California law, a plaintiff must meet three
conditions to equitably toll a statute of limitations: (1) defendant must have had
timely notice of the claim; (2) defendant must not be prejudiced by being required
to defend the otherwise barred claim; and (3) plaintiff’s conduct must have been
reasonable and in good faith.” ) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (the burden to plead
facts which would give rise to equitable tolling falls upon the plaintiff); Moreland
v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 374 (9th Cir. 1998) (on summary
judgment plaintiff bears burden of presenting evidence to support complaint’s
allegations).
Kleinhammer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --