David Getzen v. JUAN GARCIA ROMERO, Detention Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID GETZEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JUAN GARCIA ROMERO, Detention
Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-17241
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08066-SRB-DMF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
David Getzen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Erlin v. United States,
364 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal on the basis of the statute of
* 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
SEP 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17241
limitations); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Getzen’s action because it is barred by
the applicable two-year 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); TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991-92
(9th Cir. 1999) (the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims in Arizona is two
years).
Getzen’s motion for default (Docket Entry No. 15) and motion to
consolidate (Docket Entry No. 16) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --