eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2022-07

Mark Kazalonis v. Harney County, Oregon ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK KAZALONIS,                                 No. 21-35509
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01605-SU
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HARNEY COUNTY, OREGON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
UNKNOWN PARTY, Unknown Assistant
District Attorney for Harney County Oregon;
et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Mark Kazalonis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
    656 F.3d 1034
    ,
1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kazalonis’s claims regarding 2002
civil forfeiture proceedings as barred by the statute of limitations. See Maldonado
v. Harris,
    370 F.3d 945
    , 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In determining the proper statute of
limitations for actions brought under
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , we look to the statute of
limitations for personal injury actions in the forum state.”);
    Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110
    (1) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); see also
    Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.160
    (3)-(4) (allowing five years of tolling for persons with a
“disabling mental condition”); Simonsen v. Ford Motor Co.,
    102 P.3d 710
    , 719
(Or. Ct. App. 2004) (“[I]n general, ORS 12.110(1), tolled by ORS 12.160, allows a
plaintiff suffering such a disability to commence an appropriate action a maximum
of seven years after the date of the injury.”).
The district court properly dismissed Kazalonis’s claims regarding his 2014
arrest because Kazalonis failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible
claims. See Baker v. McCollan,
    443 U.S. 137
    , 143-44 (1979) (generally no
constitutional violation for arrest based on facially valid warrant); United States v.
2                                    21-35509
Gavilanes-Ocaranza,
    772 F.3d 624
    , 628 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]here is no Sixth
Amendment right to a speedy ‘trial’ in supervised release revocation proceedings
. . . .”); United States v. Soto-Olivas,
    44 F.3d 788
    , 789 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[D]ouble
jeopardy does not preclude criminal prosecution for conduct which also serves as
the basis for a parole or probation revocation.” (emphases omitted)); see also Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
    550 U.S. 544
    , 555 (2007) (a complaint must give each
“defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3                                       21-35509