Michael Diggs v. Sgt. Rogan

60 F.3d 833, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25473, 1995 WL 394287
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 30, 1995
Docket94-16028
StatusPublished

This text of 60 F.3d 833 (Michael Diggs v. Sgt. Rogan) 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
Michael Diggs v. Sgt. Rogan, 60 F.3d 833, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25473, 1995 WL 394287 (9th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

60 F.3d 833
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Michael DIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Sgt. ROGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-16028.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 1995.*
Decided June 30, 1995.

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Michael Diggs, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action against Sgt. Rogan, a correctional officer. He contends that the district court erred in dismissing his action as barred by the statute of limitations, Nev. Rev. Stat. Sec. 11.190(4)(e). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, and we affirm.

Diggs filed his complaint on March 1, 1994, more than two years after Sgt. Rogan allegedly violated his eighth amendment rights. Diggs has not alleged adequate grounds for tolling the statute of limitations. See Nev. Rev. Stat. Sec. 11.250 (Nevada's tolling statute). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Diggs's action as time-barred. See Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir. 1989).

We deny Sgt. Rogan's request for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988.

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Diggs's requests for oral argument and for appointment of counsel are denied

**

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

Related

Raymond Razo Perez v. Jerry Allen Seevers
869 F.2d 425 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F.3d 833, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25473, 1995 WL 394287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-diggs-v-sgt-rogan-ca9-1995.