Terry Turner v. City and County of Honolulu

Ninth Circuit

Terry Turner v. City and County of Honolulu

362 F. App'x 875

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 2010

Docket08-16410

StatusUnpublished

This text of 362 F. App'x 875 (Terry Turner v. City and County of Honolulu) 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

Terry Turner v. City and County of Honolulu, 362 F. App'x 875 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Terry M. Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights and negligence in connection with criminal proceedings against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 790-91 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on statute of limitations grounds because Turner failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the limitations period was tolled after July 2004, and he did not file this action until more than two years later. See Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2007) (explaining that, for section 1983 actions, courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions and that state’s tolling provisions); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 657-7 (providing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions under Hawaii law); Haw.Rev. Stat. § 657-13 (allowing for tolling of the limitations period for insanity or imprisonment); Buck v. Miles, 89 Hawai’i 244, 971 P.2d 717, 724-25 (1999) (defining insanity for tolling purposes).

Turner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Terry M. Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights and negligence in connection with criminal proceedings against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 790-91 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on statute of limitations grounds because Turner failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the limitations period was tolled after July 2004, and he did not file this action until more than two years later. See Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2007) (explaining that, for section 1983 actions, courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions and that state’s tolling provisions); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 657-7 (providing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions under Hawaii law); Haw.Rev. Stat. § 657-13 (allowing for tolling of the limitations period for insanity or imprisonment); Buck v. Miles, 89 Hawai’i 244, 971 P.2d 717, 724-25 (1999) (defining insanity for tolling purposes).

Turner’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 F. App'x 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-turner-v-city-and-county-of-honolulu-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack