LYNDON SCHEVECK V. CITY OF BOISE, No. 17-35294 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LYNDON SCHEVECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-35294 D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00036-EJL-REB MEMORANDUM* CITY OF BOISE, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Lyndon Scheveck appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from his arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations. Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Scheveck’s action as time-barred because Scheveck did not submit to the court any document that functioned as a complaint before the applicable statute of limitations had run. See Idaho Code § 5219(4) (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Canatella, 486 F.3d at 1132 (the forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations applies in § 1983 suits); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”); cf. Hauschulz v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 147 P.3d 94, 9899 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006) (holding that a filing explicitly intended to function as a complaint and submitted to the court clerk’s office is sufficient to initiate action). We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal, including Scheveck’s contention regarding equitable estoppel. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. 2 17-35294

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.