Linda Ridgway Whitedeer; Lisa Jane Apollo, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. County of Los Angeles; County of Los Angeles Internalservices Department, Real Property Branch; County of Losangeles Department of Public Works, Mapping & Propertymanagement Division; County of Los Angeles Department Ofpublic Works, Regional Planning Division; William F.stewart, in His Official Capacity; Deidre Bagby, in Herofficial Capacity; Marc Gonzales, in His Official Capacity,defendants-appellees, 124 F.3d 215 (9th Cir. 1997)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. CV-94-06054-R; Manuel L. Real, Chief Judge, Presiding.

Before: PREGERSON and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and WEINER,^**  District Judge.

ORDER^* 

Because Congress did not expressly provide a federal statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, this circuit looks to state law, in this case the one-year statute of limitations of Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 340(3). Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir. 1987). All parties agree that Appellants' suit was filed after the expiration of the one-year statute.

The letter received from the County as part of the state administrative claims process cannot impair or impact upon Appellants' § 1983 claims. See Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 152-53 (1988); Willis v. Reddin, 418 F.2d 702, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the letter does not constitute a waiver of or estop the County from asserting the running of the limitations period.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.