FERGUSON v. CDCR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Rafael Ferguson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ferguson’s claims against the Calipatria State Prison defendants as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir. 2014) (§ 1983 claims are governed by forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims).

The district court properly dismissed Ferguson’s remaining claims because Ferguson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”).

AFFIRMED.