Opinion
No. 06-55160.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
August 22, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CV-04-00916-WQH.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Steven Derrick Irvin, a California state civil detainee, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging California prison officials retaliated against him by notifying the California Board of Prison Terms that Irvin may have been a Sexually Violent Predator, because he refused to settle an unrelated civil rights action against the Department of Corrections. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Irvin's section 1983 action was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations because the alleged facts underlying Irvin's claim occurred in 1999 and 2000, and he filed his complaint in May 2004. See id. at 927 (noting that in California, a one-year statute of limitations governs assault, battery, and other personal injury claims arising prior to January 1, 2003).
We need not decide whether the district court erred in concluding that civil detainees are entitled to only a two-year tolling of the limitations period, see California Civil Procedure Code section 352.1, because the record does not show that Irvin pursued his claim in good faith after the two years expired, see Jones, 393 F.3d at 930 (holding that California's equitable tolling doctrine operates to toll a statute of limitations for a claim asserted by a continuously confined civil detainee who has acted in good faith to pursue his claims); see also Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that this Court may affirm a district court's decision on any ground supported by the record).
Furthermore, the district court properly concluded that the "continuing violation" doctrine did not render Irvin's action timely because Irvin did not plead facts demonstrating a pattern of retaliatory conduct. See Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.