Franklin D. Stafford v. Owyhee Village Inc.;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANKLIN D. STAFFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OWYHEE VILLAGE INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
No. 10-35443
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00378-BLW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Franklin D. Stafford appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment and dismissal orders in his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 action
arising out of a property dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We
FILED
NOV 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-35443 2
affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Stafford’s action was time-barred.
See 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (one year statute of limitations applies to § 1986 claims);
Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 926 (9th Cir. 2004) (Idaho’s two
year statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims); McDougal v. County of
Imperial, 942 F.2d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1991) (§ 1985 claims are governed by the
same statute of limitations as § 1983 claims); see also Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d
1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]his court has repeatedly held that a mere
continuing impact from past violations is not actionable.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Stafford’s motion
to amend where amendment would be futile. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815,
845 (9th Cir. 1995).
Stafford’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --