MEDEIROS v. CITY OF PALO ALTO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-25No. No. 19-16423

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that Medeiros's action was properly time-barred under California's two-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply because Medeiros lacked the requisite diligence in pursuing his claim.

Thomas Medeiros filed a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging malicious prosecution against the City of Palo Alto. The district court dismissed his complaint as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which the Ninth Circuit found to be the two-year period under California law for personal injury claims. Medeiros argued that equitable estoppel should excuse his late filing, but the appellate court determined that he failed to demonstrate the diligence required to invoke that doctrine against a government entity.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim was filed within the applicable statute of limitations
Whether equitable estoppel excuses a late-filed claim against a government entity
Whether the district court violated due process by considering the plaintiff's diligence in filing

Procedural posture

Medeiros appealed pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his § 1983 action on statute of limitations and Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas Medeiros appeals pro se from the district courts 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 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 Medeiross 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 states statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and the forum states 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 Medeiross action. See Hoefler v. Babbitt, 139 F.3d 726, 727 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of review); Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs Assn v. Alameda County Emps’ Ret. Assn, 266 Cal.Rptr.3d 381, 470 P.3d 85, 106 (2020) (requirements for applying equitable estoppel to a governmental entity); Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 31 Cal.4th 363, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 655, 73 P.3d 517, 533 (2003) (application of equitable estoppel requires that plaintiff proceed diligently once the truth is discovered).

We reject as without merit Medeiross contention that the district court violated his due process right or otherwise erred by considering Medeiross diligence in filing his action.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.