Curtis Beito v. City of Airway Heights , 586 F. App'x 356 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CURTIS N. BEITO, No. 13-35550
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00432-EFS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Curtis N. Beito appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations arising from
his 2006 arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Lawrence v. Dep’t of Interior, 525 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2008), and we
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis that
Beito’s action is time-barred because Beito filed his action more than three years
after his 2006 arrest, which was when his § 1983 claim accrued, and the combined
duration of his imprisonment and disability did not sufficiently toll the limitations
period. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 397 (2007) (§ 1983 claim arising from
false arrest “begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to
legal process”); Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir.
1991) (limitations period for § 1983 action is three years under Washington state
law); see also Wash. Rev. Stat. 4.16.190(1) (tolling statute of limitations if, at the
time the claim accrued, the party asserting the claim is imprisoned on a criminal
charge prior to sentencing, or is incompetent or disabled to such a degree that he or
she cannot understand the nature of the proceedings).
We do not consider Beito’s arguments regarding ineffective assistance of
counsel and alleged due process violations because they were raised for the first
time on appeal. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-35550