Dawson v. Lewis

Full title: Lawrence DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel A. LEWIS, Director…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 3, 2000

211 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

211 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2000) Lawrence DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel A. LEWIS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; Theodore Jolley, in his official capacity; Patricia Stapler, in her official capacity; Dimitri Catsaros, in his official capacity; Theodore Smith, in his official capacity; Fran Tucker, in his official capacity; Dorothy C. Vigil, in her official capacity; William Gaspar, in his official capacity; Daniel Vanelli, in his official capacity; Fran Cheske, in her official capacity; Ben Reys, in his official capacity; Ray Rickelman, in his official capacity; Lloyd Buckmaster, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-15136. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit March 3, 2000

Submitted February 24, 2000. ²

2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

D.C. No. CV-96-00211-RMB

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Richard M. Bilby, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BOOCHEVER, LEAVY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Lawrence Dawson, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action sua sponte for failure to comply with the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir.1999), and conclude that the district court did not err. See DeLuna v. Farris, 841 F.2d 312, 313 (9th Cir.1987); see also Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-502 (1995); Vega v. Morris, 910 P.2d 6, 9 (Ariz.1996) (en banc).

We deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.