NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TRACEY L. BROWN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. GARY TORSKY, Metro Police Department / Officer; GORDON MARTINES, Metro Police Department / Officer; LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; ANTHONY BROWN; CLARK COUNTY NEVADA; DOUGLAS C. GILLESPIE; JAMES BUCZEK, Metro P o lice Department / Officer,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14

- 16358 D.C. No. 2:12

- cv - 00173

- JCM

- GWF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 6, 2016 San Francisco, California Before: SILVERMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and GARBIS, * * District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

* * The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 18 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Tracey Brown appeals the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of federal and state claims relating to a search of his home that Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers conducted in 2005. Specifically, B rown argues that his claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and
Nevada state law for malicious prosecution should survive dismissal due to the doctrine of equitable tolling. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm. 1 The parties agree o n appeal that Brown’s §§ 1983 and 1985 claims and his claim for malicious prosecution under Nevada state law are a ll subject to two

- year
statute s of limitations. S ee Jones v. Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004);
Perez v. Seevers , 869 F.2d 425, 426 ( 9th Cir. 1989); Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.190(4)(c ) ; Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.190(4)(e). They also agree that these claims accrued no later than August 3, 2009, the date on which the Nevada Supreme Court overturned his
initial state conviction due to the illegality o f the 2005 search

. See Wallace v.
Kato , 549 U.S 384, 389

- 90 (2007). Brown’s claims are untimely because he first filed them on February 1, 2012, more than two years after the accrual date , and the
factors primarily relied on by Nevada courts weigh against the application of

1 We grant Brown’s unopposed request for judicial not ice.3

equitable tolling. See Copeland v. Desert Inn Hotel , 673 P.2d 490, 492 (Nev. 1983) (per curiam) (listing as six non

- exhaustive factors: claimant’s diligence, claimant’s knowledge of rel evant facts, claimant’s reliance on misleading authoritative statements by an administrative agency, deception by the defendants, prejudice to opposing party, and any other equitable considerations); State Dep ’t of Taxation v. Masco Builder Cabinet Grp. , 2 65 P.3d 666, 671 (Nev. 2011)

. Brown alleges that he was confused by the fact that the state continued to pursue criminal proceedings against him even after his conviction was reversed, and that the statute of limitations should be tolled until April 13, 2010 , when he entered a plea that ultimately resolved the proceedings. But Brown cannot establish diligence because t he Nevada State Court made clear that the 2005 search
was “unlawful” and that evidence from it could not be used in any future proceeding months before Brown’s plea date , and Brown offers no examples of
actions that he actually took to attempt to address his confusion

. Brown’s argument that the defen dants would not be prejudiced does not , standing alone, support equitable tolling h ere, part icularly where the balance of the remaining Copeland factors weigh against him

. See 673 P.2d at 492

. AFFIRMED.