Jose Tapia-Fierro v. William Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2019
• Docket: 18-16543
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS TAPIA-FIERRO, No. 18-16543

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04005-JAT-ESW

v. MEMORANDUM** WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General*; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019***

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Immigration detainee Jose Luis Tapia-Fierro appeals pro se from the district

* William Barr has been substituted for his predecessor, Matthew G. Whitaker, as Attorney General under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** 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). court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging

constitutional claims arising from his unlawful removal in 2001. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680

F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Lukovsky v.

City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal

on the basis of the statute of limitations); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,

1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tapia-Fierro’s action as time-barred

because Tapia-Fierro filed this action more than two years after his claims accrued.

See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury

claims); Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir. 1991) (forum state’s

statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies in Bivens actions); see also

W. Ctr. for Journalism v. Cederquist, 235 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000) (a

Bivens claim accrues when the plaintiff knows, or should know, of the injury

which is the basis of the action).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-16543