FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN J. KAULICK, No. 11-15213
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02611-GEB-
KJN
v.
MARTINEZ; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees,
and
M. MARTEL, Warden; SUPERIOR
COURT OF AMADOR COUNTY;
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Argued and Submitted September 12, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, ** Chief
District Judge.
California state prisoner Steven J. Kaulick appeals from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of an allegedly
improper “R” suffix designation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
“A district court’s dismissal of a claim based on a statute of limitations is
reviewed de novo.” Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). Any claim
based on the original 2001 designation is clearly time-barred. Moreover, any claim
based on the 2006 decision is also time-barred to the extent that the 2006 decision
was a “delayed, but inevitable, consequence of the original [2001 designation].”
Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 581 (9th Cir. 2012).
Even if the 2006 decision were an independent and discrete act, Kaulick’s
claim must fail. If the Unit Classification Committee finds that an inmate may no
longer require an “R” suffix, the committee refers the case to the Institution
**
The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, United States District Judge for the
District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
2
Classification Committee (“ICC”) for review. See 15 C.C.R. § 3377.1(b)(6). Once
referred to the ICC for review, the ICC can reverse an “R” suffix “only if new and
compelling information is obtained.” See Id. § 3377.1(b)(8). In light of this
exceedingly narrow standard, Kaulick cannot prevail on his due process challenge
because he did not obtain “new and compelling information” which would have
permitted a reversal of his status.
For these reasons, the district court properly dismissed this action.
AFFIRMED.
3