NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 8 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CANDACE P. LEE, No. 16-17305
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-03250-EMC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TODD H. MASTER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Candace P. Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and breach of a settlement
agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
*
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). Lee’s request for oral
argument, set forth in her opening brief, is denied.
12(b)(6). Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lee’s excessive force claim because it
was barred by the statute of limitations. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1 (two-
year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d
918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is
governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims,
including state law regarding tolling).
The district court properly dismissed Lee’s claim alleging a breach of a
settlement agreement because Lee failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
defendants breached the terms of the agreement with her. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed,
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lee’s motion for
reconsideration because Lee demonstrated no grounds for relief. See School Dist.
1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1261 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review).
We reject as unsupported by the record Lee’s contentions regarding alleged
judicial bias.
Appellees Todd H. Master, Joseph C. Howard, Jr., Howard Rome Martin &
Ridley LLP, and Peggy Sue Doyle’s request for sanctions, set forth in their
answering brief, is denied without prejudice. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 (requiring
2 16-17305
separately filed motion for damages and costs on appeal); Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848
F.2d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. 1988) (an appeal is frivolous if the results are obvious, or
the arguments of error are wholly without merit).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-17305