NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNATHAN ARTHUR FIELDS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. JUSTIN M c QUEEN , #8063; Police Officer at Phoenix Police Department,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 16389 D.C. No. 2:16

- cv - 02863

- GMS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17 , 2019 **
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Johnathan Arthur Fields a ppeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arisin g from his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo
. Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 16389

U.S.C. § 1915A) ; Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Lukovsky v. City & C ounty of San Francisco , 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal based on the statute of limitations)

. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. The district court properly dismissed Fields’ s Fourth Amendmen t unlawful
search and seizure claim as time

- barred because Fields filed this action after the applicable statute of limitations had run. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12

- 542; TwoRivers
v. Lewis , 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999) (two

- year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions brought in Arizona ); see also Belanus v. Clark , 796 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[F]ederal law holds that a cause of action for illegal search and seizure accrues when the wrongful act occurs, even if the person does not
know at th at time that the search was warrantless.” (internal citation omitted) ).
The district court dismissed Fields’ s malicious prosecution claim because Fields failed to allege that he was prosecuted in the absence of probable cause

. However, Fields alleged that defendant McQueen falsely stated in his police report
that Fields had consented to a search. These allegations are sufficient to state a
claim. See Awabdy v. City of Adelanto , 368 F.3d 1062, 106 6

- 6 8 (9th Cir. 2004) ( setting forth elements o f a malicious prosecution claim and stating that a finding3 18

- 16389

of probable cause can be rebutted by “showing that the criminal prosecution was induced by fraud, corruption, perjury, fabricated evidence, or other wrongful
conduct undertaken in bad faith” ). W e reverse the district court’s judgment in part and remand for further proceedings on Fields’s malicious prosecution claim

. Furthermore, because the district court did not address Fields’ s false imprisonment
and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, we remand for the district
court to consider these claims in the first instance

. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fields’ s motions for leave to amend the complaint because Fields fail ed to comply with the local
rules

. S ee Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review ); Bias v. Moynihan , 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (“ B road deference is given to a district court’s interpretation
of its local rules

. ” (citation omitted) )

. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Fields’s “motion for answering brief” (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied as

unneces sary.4 18

- 16389

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.