Thomas Medeiros v. City of Palo Alto ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 25 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    THOMAS MEDEIROS,                                No.    19-16423
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:17-cv-05913-LHK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    CITY OF PALO ALTO,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 21, 2021**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    Thomas Medeiros appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging a malicious prosecution claim. We
    have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal on the
    basis of the applicable statute of limitations and under Federal Rule of Civil
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 
    382 F.3d 969
    , 973 (9th Cir.
    2004). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Medeiros’s action as time-barred
    because Medeiros failed to file his action within the applicable statute of
    limitations. See 
    Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1
     (two-year statute of limitations for
    personal injury claims); Jones v. Blanas, 
    393 F.3d 918
    , 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
    apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and the
    forum state’s law regarding tolling, except to the extent inconsistent with federal
    law).
    The district court did not err by concluding that equitable estoppel does not
    apply to Medeiros’s action. See Hoefler v. Babbitt, 
    139 F.3d 726
    , 727 (9th Cir.
    1998) (standard of review); Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n v. Alameda
    County Emps’ Ret. Ass’n, 
    470 P.3d 85
    , 106 (Cal. 2020) (requirements for applying
    equitable estoppel to a governmental entity); Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 
    73 P.3d 517
    ,
    533 (Cal. 2003) (application of equitable estoppel requires that plaintiff proceed
    diligently once the truth is discovered).
    We reject as without merit Medeiros’s contention that the district court
    violated his due process right or otherwise erred by considering Medeiros’s
    diligence in filing his action.
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    2                                  19-16423
    in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                  19-16423