N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ARK M AR ION M AC Y, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. DAN HOWARD, M a ste r C orpora l at Idaho Sta te Polic e ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35992 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-00255-R EB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho R ona ld E. B ush, M a gistra t e Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d July 22, 2014 *** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . M ark M a rion M a c y

a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c onstitutiona l viola tions re sulting 

# F IL ED AUG 01 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r op r i at e f o r pub li cation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** M a c y c onse nte d t o proc e e d be fore a m a gistra t e judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lud es th i s c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).from

a polic e c ar c ha se tha

t c u lm inate d

in thede ath of M a c y ’ s wife . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Hamilton v . Brow n , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th C ir. 2011) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d M a c y ’ s § 1983 c l a im s a ga inst de fe nda nts Howa rd a nd Lind on the

ba sis of a c t s tha

t oc c urre d on Fe brua

ry 7, 2011, a s ba

rre d by the a pplic a ble two-y e ar statute of lim ita tions. Se e Idaho C ode Ann. § 5-219(4) (two-y e ar statute of lim ita tions for pe rsona l injury

a c t ions); K

nox v . Dav is , 260 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (9th C ir. 2001) (for § 1983 c la im s , fe de ra l c ourts a pply the forum

sta te ’ s pe rsona l injury

sta tute of lim ita

tions a nd fe d e ra l la

w for de te rm i ning a c c rua l; a § 1983 c la i m a c c rue s whe n the pla intiff knows or ha s re a son to know of the

injury that form s the ba sis of the a c tion). C ontra ry to M a c y ’ s c onte ntions, M a c y

is not e ntitle d to e quita

ble tolling or e quita

ble e stoppe l. Se e W allac ev . K

ato , 549 U.S. 384, 394 (2007) (fe de ra l c ourts look to sta te la w provisions for tolling the

lim ita tions pe riod); W

ilhe lm v . Frampton , 158 P.3d 310, 312 (Ida ho 2007) (Ida

ho c ourts c annot e q

uita bly toll sta tute of lim ita

tions); J .R. Simplot C o. v . C he me tic s Int’l Inc ., 887 P.2d 1039, 1041 (Ida ho 1994) (e quita

ble

1 3 - 3 5 9 9 2 2e stoppe l is a v a ila ble in Ida ho only if pla intiff la c ks a c t

ua l or c onstruc tive knowle dge of the truth). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing M a c y ’ s m otion for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use M a c y fa ile d to de m onstra

te e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s . Se ePalme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla i ning “ e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s” re quire m e nt). W e do not c onside r issue s not spe c ific a lly and distinc tly

ra ise d in the ope ning brie f, inc luding M a c y ’ s othe r dismisse d c la im s. Se ePadge t t v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C i r. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 5 9 9 2 3