Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Thomas MEDEIROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PALO ALTO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-16423

Decided: June 25, 2021

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Thomas Medeiros, Hayward, CA, Pro Se. David B. Newdorf, Newdorf Legal, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.


Thomas Medeiros appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a malicious prosecution claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Medeiros's action as time-barred because Medeiros failed to file his action within the applicable 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) (courts apply the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and the forum state's law regarding tolling, except to the extent inconsistent with federal law).

The district court did not err by concluding that equitable estoppel does not apply to Medeiros's action. See Hoefler v. Babbitt, 139 F.3d 726, 727 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard of review); Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Alameda County Emps’ Ret. Ass'n, 266 Cal.Rptr.3d 381, 470 P.3d 85, 106 (2020) (requirements for applying equitable estoppel to a governmental entity); Lantzy v. Centex Homes, 31 Cal.4th 363, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 655, 73 P.3d 517, 533 (2003) (application of equitable estoppel requires that plaintiff proceed diligently once the truth is discovered).

We reject as without merit Medeiros's contention that the district court violated his due process right or otherwise erred by considering Medeiros's diligence in filing his action.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).


Copied to clipboard