Mottahedeh v. City of Los Angeles

Type

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam

Yes — no individual author

Filed

June 17, 2002

Case

Mottahedeh v. City of Los Angeles

Case status

Decided

Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

*640 MEMORANDUM ** Peymon Mottahedeh appeals pro se the district court’s orders dismissing his claims alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) in connection with the impounding of his car. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir.1999), and may affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record, Beezley v. Fremont Indem. Co., 804 F.2d 530 , 530 n. 1 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Mottahedeh’s section 1983 claims as time-barred. See Torres v. City of Santa Ana, 108 F.3d 224, 226 (9th Cir.1997) (applying California’s personal injury one-year statute of limitation and tolling provisions to section 1983 claim); Wood v. Elling Corp., 20 Cal.3d 353 , 142 Cal.Rptr. 696 , 572 P.2d 755, 757-58 (Cal.1977) (explaining that statute of limitations is not tolled during pendency of action dismissed for failure to prosecute). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mottahedeh’s state law claim against All City Tow because that claim was also time-…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.