FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY G. WOODS, Jr., No. 13-16626
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00626-NVW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF CHANDLER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Johnny G. Woods, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his action alleging state and federal claims arising out of his 2010
arrests. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Lukovsky v. City of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
based on statute of limitations); Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470
(9th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Woods’s state law
claims because Woods did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether he filed a notice of claim within 180 days of his 2010 arrests. See Ariz.
Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(A) (a plaintiff must file a notice of claim against a public
entity or public employees within 180 days after the cause of action accrues); see
also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01(B) (“[A] cause of action accrues when the
damaged party realizes he or she has been damaged and knows or reasonably
should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition that caused
or contributed to the damage.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Woods’s 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claims because Woods did not raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether he filed his complaint within Arizona’s two-year statute of
limitations. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(1) (two-year statute of limitations for
personal injury actions); see also Lukovsky, 535 F.3d at 1048 (for § 1983 actions,
federal courts apply the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations; federal
law determines when a civil rights claim accrues).
We do not consider arguments or facts that were not presented to the district
2 13-16626
court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (declining to
consider issues not properly raised before the district court); see also United States
v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[f]acts not presented to the district
court are not part of the record on appeal”). Nor do we consider issues or
arguments raised for the first time in Woods’s reply brief. See Smith, 194 F.3d at
1052.
We reject Woods’s contention that the district court failed to consider his
pro se status in granting summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-16626