Roger Lewis Ball v. State of Oregon;

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).
LSS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGER LEWIS BALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF OREGON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-36054
D.C. No. 6:07-cv-06099-AA
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Roger Lewis Ball appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a due process violation and various state
FILED
MAR 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LSS/Research 08-36054 2
law claims resulting from his confinement in Oregon State Hospital. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Cholla Ready Mix,
Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly determined that Ball’s due process claim is time-
barred. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110(1) (statute of limitations governing personal
injury actions is two years); Carpinteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. County of Santa
Barbara, 344 F.3d 822, 828 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The applicable statute of limitations
for actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the forum state’s statute of
limitations for personal injury actions.”); Montana Pole & Treating Plant v. I.F.
Laucks & Co., 993 F.2d 676, 678 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he critical determination of
when an action accrues is knowledge of the facts essential to the cause of action.”).
Similarly, the district court properly determined that Ball’s state law claims
were barred by the Oregon Tort Claims Act’s (“OTCA”) two-year statute of
limitations. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275(9); Dowers Farms, Inc. v. Lake County,
607 P.2d 1361, 1367 (Or. 1980) (holding that the OTCA’s statute of limitations
begins to run when the plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware, that the
alleged harm was caused by the defendant).
Ball’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --