936 F.2d 576
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
David Lee BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Michael FARRIS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 89-15385.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 1991.*
Decided June 21, 1991.
Before BEEZER, WIGGINS and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
David Lee Baker appeals pro se and in forma pauperis the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 complaint1 as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d).
Frivolous in forma pauperis complaints may be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis in law and fact." Id. In civil rights cases where the plaintiff appears pro se, we liberally construe the pleadings and afford plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1988).
In his complaint, Baker contends that his court appointed attorney violated Baker's section 1983 civil rights during the course of the representation. The actions Baker complains of allegedly occurred from March to May of 1986.
The statute of limitations for section 1983 claims is the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 279 (1985). The Nevada statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years. Nev.Rev.Stat. Sec. 11.190(4)(e). Thus, Baker had two years from the date of the actions complained of within which to file his complaint in this action. See Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir.1989). Therefore, Baker's complaint should have been filed no later than May of 1988. Id. Because Baker did not file his complaint until October of 1988, his action is barred by the statute of limitations. See Wilson, 471 U.S. at 279; Perez, 869 F.2d at 426. Thus, Baker's complaint has no arguable basis in law or fact. See Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 325. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Baker's action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). See Shapley, 766 F.2d at 406.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Ordinarily, an order dismissing a complaint but not the underlying action is not a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F.2d 1169, 1171-72 n. 1 (9th Cir.1984). An exception to this rule applies, however, if it appears that the district court intended to dispose of the action. Id
Here, the district court's order only dismissed Baker's complaint. The court's language, however, indicates that the court intended to dismiss his action. We therefore have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See id.