Olivia Mora v. Eileen Ely

Ninth Circuit

Olivia Mora v. Eileen Ely

621 F. App'x 473

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 29, 2015

Docket13-36092

StatusUnpublished

This text of 621 F. App'x 473 (Olivia Mora v. Eileen Ely) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Olivia Mora v. Eileen Ely, 621 F. App'x 473 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Olivia Mora appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from defendants’ recommendation that she withdraw from an aviation class and reconsider her career path. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2003). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Mora’s action with prejudice was proper because it was time-barred, and Mora failed to show that she was entitled to any tolling. See Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir.1991) (limitations period for § 1983 action is three years under Washington state law); Perez v. Garcia, 148 Wash.App. 131, 198 P.3d 539, 545 (2009) (explaining equitable tolling under Washington law).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 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) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Olivia Mora appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from defendants’ recommendation that she withdraw from an aviation class and reconsider her career path. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. Mann v. Am. Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.2003). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Mora’s action with prejudice was proper because it was time-barred, and Mora failed to show that she was entitled to any tolling. See Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir.1991) (limitations period for § 1983 action is three years under Washington state law); Perez v. Garcia, 148 Wash.App. 131, 198 P.3d 539, 545 (2009) (explaining equitable tolling under Washington law).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 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) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 F. App'x 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olivia-mora-v-eileen-ely-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack