Denise Raynolds-Morris v. TRAVIS BUELL, E6569, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENISE RAYNOLDS-MORRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRAVIS BUELL, E6569, Deputy Sheriff, in
his individual capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55800
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02280-DOC-
DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Denise Raynolds-Morris appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims
arising from her arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations.
* 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).
FILED
MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-55800
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Raynolds-Morris’ action as time-barred
because Raynolds-Morris failed to file her action within the applicable statute of
limitations or establish any basis for equitable tolling. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code.
§ 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Jones, 393 F.3d
at 927 (statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is governed by the forum state’s
limitation period for personal injury claims, including state law regarding tolling);
Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 1999) (test for equitable tolling in
California); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.6(a) (setting forth time limitations for
commencing action against public entity).
We do not consider arguments or facts that were not presented to the district
court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --