Opinion
No. 18-15193
04-15-2020
FALASHA ALI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; JOSEPH CHRONISTER, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02171-KJD-GWF MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Former pretrial detainee Falasha Ali appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from Ali's pretrial detention. 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal based on the statute of limitations). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ali's action as untimely because Ali filed this action more than two years after his claims accrued. See Rosales-Martinez v. Palmer, 753 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that forum state's personal injury statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims and Nevada's relevant statute of limitations is two years). Furthermore, Ali failed to establish that his previous action was a basis for equitable tolling.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ali's third motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss because Ali failed to demonstrate good cause. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-60 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and discussing good cause requirement for extensions of time).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ali's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because Ali failed to demonstrate any basis for relief from the judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)).
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 presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.