Michael Carmine Micolo v. D. REYES, Deputy Sheriff 1150; STACY SHERWOOD, Pinal County Deputy

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL CARMINE MICOLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. REYES, Deputy Sheriff #1150; STACY
SHERWOOD, Pinal County Deputy,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
COUNTY OF PINAL; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 20-16481
D.C. No.
2:17-cv-01439-DJH-JZB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Michael Carmine Micolo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
* 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
APR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16481
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and related state
law claims. 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 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 Micolo’s excessive force claim as
time-barred because Micolo failed to file his action within the applicable statute of
limitations. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 1983 claims
are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims);
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (providing two-year statute of limitations for personal
injury actions).
The district court properly dismissed Micolo’s state law claims because
Micolo failed to comply with Arizona’s Notice of Claim rules. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
§ 12-821.01 (requiring plaintiffs to serve notice of claims against a public entity
within 180 days of accrual of cause of action).
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 --