Christina Greenfield v. City of Post Falls Municipalit , 648 F. App'x 739 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTINA J. GREENFIELD, No. 14-35394
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00437-CWD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF POST FALLS
MUNICIPALITY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Candy W. Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 13, 2016***
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Christina J. Greenfield appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
arising out of a zoning and boundary dispute. We review de novo a dismissal
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir.
2009). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Greenfield’s Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection claim because it is barred by the applicable two-year statute of
limitations. See Silva v. Crain, 169 F.3d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1999) (state law
governs the statute of limitations period for § 1983 suits); Hallstrom v. Garden
City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1476 (9th Cir. 1993) (applying the two-year statute of
limitations in Idaho Code § 5-219(4) to claims brought under § 1983).
The district court properly dismissed Greenfield’s state law claims arising
out of her acquittal because Greenfield did not timely file a notice of claim in
accordance with Idaho’s Tort Claims Act. See McQuillen v. City of Ammon, 747
P.2d 741, 744 (Idaho 1987) (“Compliance with the Idaho Tort Claims Act’s notice
requirement is a mandatory condition precedent to bringing suit, the failure of
which is fatal to a claim, no matter how legitimate.”).
Because Greenfield has provided no Idaho authority supporting the existence
of statutory or direct causes of action based on violations of the Idaho Constitution,
dismissal of her state law claims for alleged violations of the Idaho Constitution
was proper.
2 14-35394
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Greenfield leave to
amend her complaint because amendment would be futile. See Platt Elec. Supply,
Inc v. EOFF Elec., Inc., 522 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth the
standard of review); Naas v. Stolman, 130 F.3d 892, 893 (9th Cir. 1997) (no abuse
of discretion where potential amended claim would still be barred by the statute of
limitations).
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).
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Appellees’ request for attorney’s fees under Idaho Code § 6-918A, set forth
in the answering brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-35394