Case ID: f-appx_621/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Olivia MORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eileen ELY, President of Green River Community College, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-36092.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 29, 2015.
    Olivia Mora, Tukwila, WA, pro se.
    Brooke E. Burbank, Assistant Attorney General, AGWA — Office of the Washington Attorney General, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Olivia Mora appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from defendants’ recommendation that she withdraw from an aviation class and reconsider her career path. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2003). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Mora’s action with prejudice was proper because it was time-barred, and Mora failed to show that she was entitled to any tolling. See 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); Perez v. Garcia, 148 Wash.App. 131, 198 P.3d 539, 545 (2009) (explaining equitable tolling under Washington law).

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) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.