Rata Bey Meniooh v. TWO JINN, INC., DBA Aladdin Bail Bonds, Real Party in Interest

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RATA BEY MENIOOH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TWO JINN, INC., DBA Aladdin Bail Bonds,
Real Party in Interest; CHARLES ELI
BLASIGAME; JOYCE D. HINRICHS;
SUPERIOR COURT; COUNTY OF
HUMBOLDT; MTA MULLEN, Humboldt
County Correctional Officer; SWIM,
Humboldt County Correctional Officer; L.
MYERS, Humboldt County Correctional
Officer; WILLIAM F. HONSAL, Humboldt
County Sheriff,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16234
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-02840-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
* 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
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16234
Rata Bey Meniooh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging various constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Meniooh’s claims against defendants
Judge Hinrichs and Humbolt County Superior Court on the basis of Eleventh
Amendment immunity. See Ass’n des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v.
Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 943 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing Eleventh Amendment
immunity).
The district court properly dismissed Meniooh’s claims against the
remaining defendants because Meniooh failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
he filed his action within the two-year statute of limitations. See Canatella v. Van
De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007) (for § 1983 claims, federal courts
apply the forum state’s statute of limitations; California’s statute of limitations is
two years for personal injury actions.).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Meniooh’s
action without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See
Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16234
review and factors for determining whether to grant leave to amend).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal.
See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --