Gregory Goods v. DAVID BAUGHMAN, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY GOODS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID BAUGHMAN, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15365
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00732-JAM-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gregory Goods appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force
and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gregg v. Haw. Dep’t of Pub. Safety,
* 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
MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15365
870 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal as time-barred); 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 Goods’s action because Goods failed to
file his action within the two-year statute of limitations or establish any basis for
tolling. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387, 394 (2007) (federal courts in
§ 1983 actions apply the state statute of limitations and borrow applicable tolling
provisions from state law); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 352.1, 352(a)
(setting forth two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, a two-year
maximum statutory tolling due to imprisonment, and the availability of tolling for
mental incapacity); Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275-1277 (9th
Cir. 1993) (stating California’s three-pronged test for equitable tolling and
explaining that dismissal may be appropriate when it is evident from the face of the
complaint that equitable tolling is unavailable as a matter of law).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --