Thomas Medeiros v. City of Palo Alto

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS MEDEIROS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PALO ALTO,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19-16423
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-05913-LHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Thomas Medeiros appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a malicious prosecution claim. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the
basis of the applicable statute of limitations and under Federal Rule of Civil
* 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
JUN 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-16423
Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Medeiros’s action as time-barred
because Medeiros failed to file his action within the applicable statute of
limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for
personal injury claims); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and the
forum state’s law regarding tolling, except to the extent inconsistent with federal
law).
The district court did not err by concluding that equitable estoppel does not
apply to Medeiros’s action. See Hoefler v. Babbitt, 139 F.3d 726, 727 (9th Cir.
1998) (standard of review); Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n v. Alameda
County Emps’ Ret. Ass’n, 470 P.3d 85, 106 (Cal. 2020) (requirements for applying
equitable estoppel to a governmental entity); Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 73 P.3d 517,
533 (Cal. 2003) (application of equitable estoppel requires that plaintiff proceed
diligently once the truth is discovered).
We reject as without merit Medeiros’s contention that the district court
violated his due process right or otherwise erred by considering Medeiros’s
diligence in filing his action.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-16423
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --