Peckham v. Lehman

228 F. App'x 644
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 27, 2006·No. No. 05-35745·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Allen Peckham, a civil detainee pursuant to Washington’s Sexually Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”), Washington Revised Code chapter 71.09, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Joseph Lehman, Secretary of the Washington State Department of Corrections, because the district court concluded the action was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm.

Peckham argues that the district court erred in failing to hold that the applicable three-year statute of limitations on his claim was equitably tolled during his pretrial confinement under Washington’s SVPA. Equitable tolling is not applicable to this case. Under Washington law, “[t]he predicates for equitable tolling are bad faith, deception, or false assurances by the defendant and the exercise of diligence by the plaintiff.” Millay v. Cam, 135 Wash.2d 193, 955 P.2d 791, 797 (1998) (citing Finkelstein v. Sec. Props., Inc., 76 Wash.App. 733, 888 P.2d 161, 167 (1995)). Peckham has not demonstrated that he diligently pursued his claim, or that Lehman engaged in bad faith or deception or made false assurances. Because Peckham filed this action outside the three-year limitations period, his claim is time barred.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

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

Peckham v. Lehman, 228 F. App'x 644 (9th Cir. 2006).

228 F. App'x 644 (Peckham v. Lehman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Millay v. Cam
955 P.2d 791 (Washington Supreme Court, 1998)
Finkelstein v. Security Properties, Inc.
888 P.2d 161 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1995)
Millay v. Cam
135 Wash. 2d 193 (Washington Supreme Court, 1998)