Case Name: Teri JAMES, Guardian ad litem for Amanda James and Samantha Weidland, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY OF BUTTE COUNTY, Department of Family & Children's Services and the Child Protective Services Department; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-26
Citations: 310 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 05-16706
Parties: Teri JAMES, Guardian ad litem for Amanda James and Samantha Weidland, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY OF BUTTE COUNTY, Department of Family & Children’s Services and the Child Protective Services Department; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
Teri JAMES, Guardian ad litem for Amanda James and Samantha Weidland, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY OF BUTTE COUNTY, Department of Family & Children’s Services and the Child Protective Services Department; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-16706.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 26, 2009.
Teri James, Roseville, CA, pro se.
Terence J. Cassidy, Esq., Porter Scott Weiberg & Delehant, Sacramento, CA, Gregory P. Einhorn, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, Chico, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Teri James appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Universal Health Serv., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
Because James does not challenge the district court's bases for dismissing her claims as time-barred and rejecting her equitable tolling arguments, she forfeits any challenge to that determination. See Martin v. City of Oceanside, 360 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir.2004) (appellant forfeits issues not specifically and distinctly argued in her opening brief).
We do not consider James's contention that she is entitled to equitable tolling on the basis of defendants' alleged threats to deny her custody of her daughter if she pursued legal action because she raises this argument for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that, as a general rule, the court will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.