David Getzen v. Juan Romero

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 23, 2021
• Docket: 20-17241
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID GETZEN, No. 20-17241

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-08066-SRB-DMF

v. MEMORANDUM* JUAN GARCIA ROMERO, Detention Officer,

Defendant-Appellee.

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). 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 20-17241