BONELLI v. MULLA (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Isaac M. Bonelli appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations, MHC Fin. L.P. v. City of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bonelli filed his complaint more than two years after his action accrued on February 19, 2010. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(1) (action for personal injury shall not be commenced more than two years after accrual); see also Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 871-72 (9th Cir. 2018) (state tolling and statute of limitations for personal injury claims apply to § 1983 claims, 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).

Contrary to Bonelli’s contention, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3994 does not provide a mandatory administrative review process, and Bonelli has failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in finding that he was not entitled to tolling the statute of limitations.

We do not consider 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.