Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CV-99-4567-CRB
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 (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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 Northern District of California, Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding.
Before WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
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.
Harold Jackson Murray appeals pro se the district court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his complaint brought pursuant to 42 U .S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissals on statute of limitations grounds. See Vaughan v. Grijalva, 927 F.2d 476, 478 (9th Cir.1991).
Because Murray is not required to exhaust state tort remedies before bringing a section 1983 action, see Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 140-41 (1988), and filing a state tort action does not toll a federal civil rights claim, the district court did not err by dismissing Murray's section 1983 claim with prejudice for failure to comply with the one-year statute of limitations, see Ervin v. County of Los Angeles, 848 F.2d 1018, 1019 (9th Cir.1988).
Because Murray's sole federal claim was dismissed, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his state law claims without prejudice. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988).
We deny Murray's request to recuse Judges Breyer, Farris, and Canby. See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.1985).
AFFIRMED.