Isaac M. Bonelli v. DAWOOD MULLA, Psychiatrist at Arizona State Hospital;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISAAC M. BONELLI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAWOOD MULLA, Psychiatrist at Arizona
State Hospital; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15456
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00406-SPL-BSB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges
Isaac M. Bonelli appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations, MHC Fin. L.P. v. City
* 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).
FILED
AUG 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-15456
of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bonelli filed
his complaint more than two years after his action accrued on February 19, 2010.
See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542(1) (action for personal injury shall not be
commenced more than two years after accrual); see also Soto v. Sweetman, 882
F.3d 865, 871-72 (9th Cir. 2018) (state tolling and statute of limitations for
personal injury claims apply to § 1983 claims, and federal law governs when a
claim accrues, which is when a plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that
forms the basis for his cause of action).
Contrary to Bonelli’s contention, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3994 does not
provide a mandatory administrative review process, and Bonelli has failed to
demonstrate that the district court erred in finding that he was not entitled to tolling
the statute of limitations.
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 of 2 --