Case Name: Curtis N. BEITO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-03
Citations: 586 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 13-35550
Parties: Curtis N. BEITO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 356–356

Head Matter:
Curtis N. BEITO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-35550.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Filed Dec. 3, 2014.
Curtis N. Beito, San Benito, TX, pro se.
David L. Force, Patrick G. McMahon, Esquire, Carlson Mcmahon & Sealby, PLLC, Wenatchee, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Curtis N. Beito appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations arising from his 2006 arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Lawrence v. Dept of Interior, 525 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis that Beito's action is time-barred because Beito filed his action more than three years after his 2006 arrest, which was when his § 1983 claim accrued, and the combined duration of his imprisonment and disability did not sufficiently toll the limitations period. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 397, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (§ 1983 claim arising from false arrest "begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process"); 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); see also Wash.Rev.Stat. 4.16.190(1) (tolling statute of limitations if, at the time the claim accrued, the party asserting the claim is imprisoned on a criminal charge prior to sentencing, or is incompetent or disabled to such a degree that he or she cannot understand the nature of the proceedings).
We do not consider Beito's arguments regarding ineffective assistance of counsel and alleged due process violations because they were raised for the first time on appeal. 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.