NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT HOLMES III, No. 16-16215
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00877-JAD-GWF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Robert Holmes, III, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging constitutional claims arising from the seizure of his
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. Johnson v. Lucent
*
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).
Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1005 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed as time-barred Holmes’s claims against
Sullivan, Kelly, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Department defendants, and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement because Holmes filed this action more than
two years after any claim accrued. See Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 410 (9th
Cir. 1991) (forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies in
Bivens and § 1983 actions); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(4)(c),(e) (applying a two-year
statute of limitations period to personal injury claims in Nevada); see also Fink v.
Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999) (“A claim accrues when the plaintiff
knows, or should know, of the injury which is the basis of the cause of action.”).
We reject as without merit Holmes’ contentions regarding tolling.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Holmes’s claims
against Holl because Holmes failed to show good cause as to why he did not timely
serve Holl. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service,
and explaining that district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to
serve “after notice to the plaintiff”); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 511-12 (9th Cir.
2001) (setting forth standard of review and discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause”
standard).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
2 16-16215
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district
court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents
or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16215