Opinion
23-35334
07-23-2024
TOMAS ALVARADO, AKA Thomas Alvarado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RYAN T. BLACKHAWK; JOHN KEMPE, Detective; TRAVIS NALDER, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 16, 2024 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 1:22-cv-00293-BLW for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, VANDYKE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Tomas Alvarado appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Alvarado's action because Alvarado failed to file it within the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and failed to allege facts sufficient to show he was entitled to tolling or equitable estoppel. See Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999) (§ 1983 claims are subject to the forum state's statute of limitations and tolling rules for personal injury claims); Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980) (a complaint may be dismissed as time-barred if the running of the statute of limitations is apparent on the face of the complaint); see also Idaho Code § 5-219(4) (providing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Idaho Code § 5-230 (allowing tolling of personal injury claims only for claimants under the age of majority or for reason of insanity); J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics Int'l, Inc., 887 P.2d 1039, 1041 (Idaho 1994) (setting forth requirements for equitable estoppel).
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).
AFFIRMED.
[*]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).