Rodney R. Rhodes v. Treaver Miller;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY R. RHODES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TREAVER MILLER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-35314
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00207-SLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Former Alaska state prisoner Rodney R. Rhodes appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among
other things, unlawful arrest and unlawful search and seizure, and related state law
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
FILED
JUL 31 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

dismissal of an action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Johnson v.
Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1005 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rhodes’ federal constitutional and state
law claims arising from his allegedly unlawful arrest and an allegedly unlawful
search and seizure because Rhodes filed his complaint more than two years after
these claims accrued. See Alaska Stat. § 09.10.070 (a)-(b) (two-year statute of
limitations for personal injury claims and actions against police officers); Knox v.
Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (for § 1983 claims, federal courts
apply the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations; a § 1983 claim
accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that forms the
basis of the action); Sengupta v. Univ. of Alaska, 21 P.3d 1240, 1249 (Alaska
2001) (“A personal injury claim accrues when a party knows or should know that
he has a claim, ordinarily the date the alleged injury occurs.”); Jenkins v. Daniels,
751 P.2d 19, 21-23 (Alaska 1988) (the statute of limitations for unlawful arrest
accrues on the date of the arrest).
Moreover, Rhodes failed to show that equitable tolling applied. See
Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007) (for § 1983
claims, courts apply the forum’s state law regarding equitable tolling); Kaiser v.
2 13-35314

-- 2 of 3 --

Umialik Ins., 108 P.3d 876, 882 (Alaska 2005) (declining to apply equitable tolling
to pro se litigant due to incarceration).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rhodes leave to
amend his federal constitutional and state law claims arising out of his allegedly
unlawful arrest and an allegedly unlawful search and seizure because amendment
would have been futile. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir.
2009) (setting forth standard of review and stating that a “district court does not err
in denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile”).
Rhodes’ motion for attorney’s fees is denied without prejudice. See Fed. R.
App. P. 39; 9th Cir. R. 39-1.6.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-35314

-- 3 of 3 --