Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
13-36092•Olivia Mora v. EILEEN ELY, President of Green River Community College
13-36092Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit29.10.2015
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OLIVIA MORA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EILEEN ELY, President of Green River
Community College, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-36092
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02134-JCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
OCT 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
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, 198
P.3d 539, 545 (Wash. Ct. App. 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.
13-36092 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.