Frerichs v. Spokane Police Department

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JARED A. FRERICHS, No. 24-2977 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00277-TOR Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

SPOKANE POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Jared A. Frerichs appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of the confiscation of his

firearms. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Webb v. Trader Joe’s Co.,

* 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). 999 F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Frerichs’s § 1983 claims as barred by

the applicable statute of limitations. See Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 870–71

(9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that “[f]ederal courts in § 1983 actions apply the state

statute of limitations from personal-injury claims,” and that “federal law governs

when a claim accrues,” which is “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know

of the injury which is the basis of the action” (citation omitted)); Boston v. Kitsap

County, 852 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that a three-year statute of

limitations, WASH. REV. CODE § 4.16.080, applies to § 1983 claims in

Washington).

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.

2 24-2977