Court Opinion

ID: 9388578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 23:00:26.662745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.128002
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT CHAGOLLA; JACKIE                         No. 21-16352
CHAGOLLA,
                                                D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00079-MTL
                Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

BRYAN CLUFF, Maricopa County Sheriff’s
Office; TODD BATES, Maricopa County
Sheriff’s Office; PAUL PENZONE,
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office;
MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE; COUNTY OF MARICOPA;
CLARISSE MCCORMICK,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Robert and Jackie Chagolla appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissing their action alleging various federal claims arising from Robert

Chagolla’s termination from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6)); Mills v. City of Covina, 921 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2019) (dismissal

on the basis of the statute of limitations). We may affirm on any basis supported

by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We

affirm.

      Dismissal of plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims was proper because

plaintiffs filed this action more than two years after their claims accrued. See Soto

v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that “[f]ederal

courts in § 1983 actions apply the state statute of limitations from personal injury

claims,” and that federal law governs when a claim accrues, which is when a

plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that forms the basis for his cause of

action); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2004)

(applying Arizona’s two-year personal injury statute of limitations to § 1983

claim).

      We do not consider plaintiffs’ contentions regarding their claims brought

under Rule 60(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because those claims are

beyond the scope of this appeal. See Docket Entry No. 13 (limiting the scope of

                                          2                                     21-16352
this appeal to claims dismissed with prejudice in the district court’s August 6, 2021

order).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not

consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921

F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                       21-16352