Hale v. Stillwater

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LEE HALE, No. 25-4146 D.C. No.

Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:24-cv-02091-DDP-PD v.

MEMORANDUM*

SANDRA STILLWATER, Attorney, individual and official capacity; KENNETH VONHELMOLT, District Attorney, individual and official capacity; ERIC CROSSON, Police Detective, individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 26, 2026**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Robert Lee Hale appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

*

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).

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth

Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.

2004) (dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hale’s action as time-barred because

Hale failed to file this action within the applicable statute of limitations. See Cal.

Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (setting forth two-year statute of limitations for personal

injury claims); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining

that § 1983 claims are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for

personal injury claims).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-4146