From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Skinner v. Denny

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 25, 2008
301 F. App'x 703 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-15014.

Submitted November 13, 2008.

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

Filed November 25, 2008.

Gordon Todd Skinner, El Reno, OK, pro se.

Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-00537-RLH/RAM.

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Gordon Todd Skinner, a Nevada federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, of his Bivens action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Bodine v. Graco, Inc., 533 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court correctly concluded that Skinner's deprivation of property claim was untimely, because Skinner was aware of the alleged injury more than two years before he filed suit. See Nev. Rev. State. § 11.190(4)(e); Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that personal injury statute of limitations under state law applies to Bivens claims); Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that a claim accrues under federal law when a plaintiff becomes aware of the injury, not when she suspects a legal wrong).

We need not decide whether Skinner's Fifth Amendment claim is Heck-barred, because his allegations do not state a claim for relief under Bivens. See Crist v. Leippe, 138 F.3d 801, 805 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming dismissal of Bivens action because plaintiff could not show that he suffered an injury due to government action).

We deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Skinner v. Denny

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 25, 2008
301 F. App'x 703 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Skinner v. Denny

Case Details

Full title:Gordon Todd SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Craig DENNY; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 25, 2008

Citations

301 F. App'x 703 (9th Cir. 2008)