Dunn v. Noe

Ninth Circuit

Dunn v. Noe

59 F. App'x 944

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2003

DocketNo. 02-16849; D.C. No. CV-02-00043-MJJ

StatusPublished

This text of 59 F. App'x 944 (Dunn v. Noe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dunn v. Noe, 59 F. App'x 944 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Michael Allan Dunn appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants improperly seized materials from Dunn’s property without a hearing in 1993. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 653 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dunn’s action as time-barred because all of the allegations stem from incidents occuring on or about March 12, 1993, and Dunn did not file his complaint until January 3, 2002. See id.; Cal. Civ. Pro.Code § 352.1.

Dunn’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Michael Allan Dunn appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants improperly seized materials from Dunn’s property without a hearing in 1993. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 653 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dunn’s action as time-barred because all of the allegations stem from incidents occuring on or about March 12, 1993, and Dunn did not file his complaint until January 3, 2002. See id.; Cal. Civ. Pro.Code § 352.1.

Dunn’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F. App'x 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-noe-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack