FALASHA ALI V. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, No. 18-15193 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FALASHA ALI, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-15193 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02171-KJD-GWF MEMORANDUM* CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS; JOSEPH CHRONISTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Former pretrial detainee Falasha Ali appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from Ali’s pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal * 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). under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal based on the statute of limitations). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ali’s action as untimely because Ali filed this action more than two years after his claims accrued. See RosalesMartinez v. Palmer, 753 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that forum state’s personal injury statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims and Nevada’s relevant statute of limitations is two years). Furthermore, Ali failed to establish that his previous action was a basis for equitable tolling. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ali’s third motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss because Ali failed to demonstrate good cause. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-60 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and discussing good cause requirement for extensions of time). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ali’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because Ali failed to demonstrate any basis for relief from the judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 2 18-15193 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). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED. 3 18-15193
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.
