Randy Jaquez v. R. Johnson;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RANDY JAQUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. JOHNSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16012
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00459-LDG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges
California state prisoner Randy Jaquez appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-16012 2
review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jaquez’s
action was time-barred, as all claims accrued more than four years before Jaquez
filed his complaint. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 352.1(a) (California has a
two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims; the limitations period
may be tolled for an additional two years for prisoners); Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d
1009, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (§ 1983 actions are governed by the forum state’s
statute of limitations; a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to
know of the injury which is the basis of the action; continuing impact from past
violations does not cause a claim to accrue anew).
The district court properly denied Jaquez’s motion to amend because the
deficiencies in his complaint could not be cured by amendment. See Lucas v.
Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal of a pro se complaint
without leave to amend is proper if the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be
cured by amendment).
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --