Narrative Opinion Summary
Cyrus Yoo Kim appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit regarding the impounding of his vehicle. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and conducts a de novo review. The district court's dismissal is affirmed, as Kim's claim was filed beyond the three-year statute of limitations applicable under Washington law (Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2)), following the precedent set in Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp. The court also denied Kim's motion for reconsideration, finding no new evidence, change in law, clear error, or manifest injustice that would warrant such reconsideration, in line with the criteria established in Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc. The decision is affirmed and noted as not suitable for publication or precedent under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction of Appellate Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court confirmed its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court’s decision.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and conducts a de novo review.
Non-precedential Nature of Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision was explicitly deemed not suitable for publication or as precedent, in accordance with 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reasoning: The decision is affirmed and noted as not suitable for publication or precedent under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard for Reconsideration of Court Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Kim's motion for reconsideration was denied because he failed to present new evidence, a change in law, clear error, or manifest injustice, adhering to established legal criteria.
Reasoning: The court also denied Kim's motion for reconsideration, finding no new evidence, change in law, clear error, or manifest injustice that would warrant such reconsideration, in line with the criteria established in Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.
Statute of Limitations for Section 1983 Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Washington's three-year statute of limitations to dismiss Kim's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as it was filed beyond this period.
Reasoning: The district court's dismissal is affirmed, as Kim's claim was filed beyond the three-year statute of limitations applicable under Washington law (Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2)), following the precedent set in Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp.