Mahon v. County of Los Angeles

Full title: Johnnie Ray MAHON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Los…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 15, 1999

210 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 1999)

Opinion

210 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 1999) Johnnie Ray MAHON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; Los Angeles Sheriff's Department; Roger Michel, Detective in his individual and official capacity; City of Hollywood; Hollywood Police Department; James Gomez, Director; Theodore White; Daryl Gates; and City of Los Angeles, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-56793. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit December 15, 1999

Submitted December 13, 1999 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-94-08513-DT(JG)

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 (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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 Central District of California Dickran Tevrizian, District Judge, Presiding.

Before LEAVY, TROTT and SILVERMAN, 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.

Johnnie Ray Mahon appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages from numerous defendants for an allegedly unlawful arrest in 1988 and its aftermath, concluding with his release from prison in February 1992. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mahon contends that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. This contention lacks merit. We review de novo a dismissal based on the statute of limitations. See Silva v. Crain, 169 F.3d 608, 610 (9th Cir.1999). The complaint in the case before us was filed in December 1994, well past one year from Mahon's release from custody, and it is therefore time-barred. See id.; Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir.1999). Mahon's request for judicial notice of his attempt to file a third amended complaint in a different case gains him nothing, because the new claims and defendants in the proffered amendment and in this case do not relate back to the earlier complaint. See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 916-17 & n. 9 (9th Cir.1999). The district court properly dismissed Mahon's complaint in this action as time-barred. See Krug v. Imbordino, 896 F.2d 395, 397 (9th Cir.1990). ³

3 Mahon's letter dated March 28, 1999 is construed as a motion to consolidate this appeal with Mahon v. County of Los Angeles, 97-56489, 1999 WL 59341 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 1999) (unpublished memorandum disposition), and is DENIED as moot.

AFFIRMED.