NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL PETRAMALA, No. 18-16781
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02449-DLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE; KEN FLINT,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Michael Petramala appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims stemming from his state
criminal action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
the district court’s dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations.
*
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).
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 847 F.3d 1075, 1084 n.7 (9th Cir. 2017). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Petramala’s action as time-barred
because Petramala filed his complaint more than two years after his action accrued
in September 2004. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(1) (action alleging personal
injury claim shall be commenced within two years after cause of action accrues);
Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 870-71 (9th Cir. 2018) (state tolling and statute of
limitations for personal injury claims apply to § 1983 action, and 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).
We do not consider Petramala’s renewed request for appointment of counsel
set forth in his opening brief. In Docket Entry No. 10, this court denied
Petramala’s motion for appointment of counsel and ordered that no motions for
reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the denial shall be filed or
entertained.
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
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-16781