FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNEST LEE COX, JR., No. 08-16252
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:03-cv-03961-JW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GREGORY HARRIS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Ware, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ernest Lee Cox, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing as untimely his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
*
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).
JK/Research
alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132
(9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as time-barred because Cox
filed suit after the applicable statute of limitations and statutory tolling period had
expired. See id. at 1132-33 (explaining that a one-year statute of limitations
applies to any cause of action that was more than one-year old as of January 1,
2003). Moreover, Cox was not eligible for equitable tolling under California’s
tolling provisions. See Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth applicable tolling criteria).
Cox’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
JK/Research 2 08-16252