The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-35714•Khosrow Rahimi v. City of Sheridan; State of Oregon
21-35714Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 15, 2022
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KHOSROW RAHIMI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SHERIDAN; STATE OF
OREGON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-35714
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-01607-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Khosrow Rahimi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of the rezoning of real property.
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
DEC 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 21-35714
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 Rahimi’s action as time-barred because
Rahimi filed this action more than two years after his claims accrued. See Soto v.
Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that “[f]ederal courts
in § 1983 actions apply the state statute of limitations from personal injury claims,”
and that federal law governs when a claim accrues, which is when a plaintiff
knows or should know of the injury that forms the basis for his cause of action);
Bonneau v. Centennial Sch. Dist. No. 28J, 666 F.3d 577, 579-80 (9th Cir. 2012)
(applying Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.110’s two-year statute of limitations to § 1983 claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.