United States v. 2020-05-12 | 19-16501 | ROBERT EPPS V. A. DELEON | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT EPPS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

A. DELEON, Correctional Officer; A.
SACAY, Correctional Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16501

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01306-JAM-AC

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Robert Epps appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an excessive force claim.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d

*
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

MAY 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16501
1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Epps’s action as time-barred because
Epps failed to file his action within the applicable statute of limitations. See Jones
v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 1983 claims are governed by the
forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including state law
regarding tolling); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1, 352.1(a) (two-year statute
of limitations for personal injury claims; statutory tolling of up to two years due to
imprisonment); Martell v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr., 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329,
334 (1998) (equitable tolling ordinarily does not apply to “successive claims
pursued in the same forum”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Epps’s motion for
leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes
v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when
amendment would be futile).
Epps’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (Docket Entry No. 2) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.