With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". most favorable to the plaintiff. See Love v. United States, 915 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir.1989). Dismissal of a complaint is improper “unless ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would entitle [her] to relief.’ ” Id. (quoting Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir.1986)). 1. Application of the statute of limitations to the § 1983 claims. DeGrassi contends that the district court erred when it dismissed those of her § 1983 claims based on acts occurring more than one year before the fifing of the action on September 23, 1997, as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. We apply California’s personal injury statute of limitations to § 1983 actions. See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Federal law determines when a civil rights

A: holding that the aedpa oneyear statute of limitations applies to amendments to  2255 motions
B: holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims
C: holding that the oneyear statute of limitations set out in 28 usc  2244d applies to  2241 petitions
D: holding that in california the oneyear statute applies to a  1983 action
D.