RICK SANDOVAL V. CHINO STATE PRISON, No. 15-55584 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 16 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICK S. SANDOVAL, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55584 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-00327-JLS-KK v. MEMORANDUM * CHINO STATE PRISON, official capacity; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Rick S. Sandoval appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations stemming from overcrowding in a dayroom at Chino State * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Sandoval’s action as time-barred because, even with the benefit of statutory tolling due to incarceration, Sandoval failed to file his action within the applicable statute of limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 352.1(a) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims; two-year tolling period due to incarceration); Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2007) (forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations and tolling laws apply to § 1983 actions; federal law determines when a civil rights claim accrues, which is “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, Sandoval failed to show that he was entitled to equitable tolling. See Fink, 192 F.3d at 916 (three-pronged test for equitable tolling in California). AFFIRMED. 2 15-55584

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.