HECTOR RESSY V. PIERCE COUNTY, No. 15-35565 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HECTOR L. RESSY, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35565 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05693-RBL MEMORANDUM* PIERCE COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Hector L. Ressy appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 755 F.3d 1191, * 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). 1194 (9th Cir. 2014) (application of the relation-back doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)); Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on the statute of limitations). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ressy’s claim as barred by the statute of limitations. See Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 750 (9th Cir. 1991) (limitations period for § 1983 claim is three years under Washington state law); see also Woods View II, LLC v. Kitsap Cnty., 352 P.3d 807, 816 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (the statute of limitations for a negligence action is three years). The district court properly concluded that Ressy’s amended complaint did not relate back to his original complaint under Rule 15 because Ressy failed to demonstrate that defendants had timely notice of Ressy’s action or knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against them but for Ressy’s mistake concerning their identity. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C); Wash. Civ. R. 15(c); see also Butler, 766 F.3d at 1202-03 (discussing the requirements for relation-back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C)). AFFIRMED. 2 15-35565

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.