Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8630537
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Johnson v. Lucent Technologies Inc.
No. 8630537 · Decided April 23, 2007
No. 8630537·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
April 23, 2007
Citation
No. 8630537
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Russell H. Johnson III appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his action alleging, inter alia, assault and violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . After de novo review, Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th Cir.1999), we affirm. For the reasons stated in its October 31, 2005 order, the district court correctly concluded that all of Johnson’s claims were barred by the relevant statutes of limitations. The district court also properly concluded that Johnson did not sufficiently allege fraudulent concealment that would toll any statute of limitations. See Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1415-1416 (9th Cir.1987). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
Johnson III appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his action alleging, inter alia, assault and violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Key Points
01Johnson III appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his action alleging, inter alia, assault and violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
02For the reasons stated in its October 31, 2005 order, the district court correctly concluded that all of Johnson’s claims were barred by the relevant statutes of limitations.
03The district court also properly concluded that Johnson did not sufficiently allege fraudulent concealment that would toll any statute of limitations.
Johnson III appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his action alleging, inter alia, assault and violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Johnson v. Lucent Technologies Inc. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on April 23, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8630537 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.