Robert Chagolla; Jackie Chagolla v. BRYAN CLUFF, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT CHAGOLLA; JACKIE
CHAGOLLA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BRYAN CLUFF, Maricopa County Sheriff’s
Office; TODD BATES, Maricopa County
Sheriff’s Office; PAUL PENZONE,
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office;
MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE; COUNTY OF MARICOPA;
CLARISSE MCCORMICK,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16352
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00079-MTL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Robert and Jackie Chagolla appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
* 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
APR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16352
dismissing their action alleging various federal claims arising from Robert
Chagolla’s termination from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6)); Mills v. City of Covina, 921 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2019) (dismissal
on the basis of the statute of limitations). We may affirm on any basis supported
by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We
affirm.
Dismissal of plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims was proper because
plaintiffs filed this action more than two years after their claims accrued. 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 a
plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that forms the basis for his cause of
action); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2004)
(applying Arizona’s two-year personal injury statute of limitations to § 1983
claim).
We do not consider plaintiffs’ contentions regarding their claims brought
under Rule 60(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because those claims are
beyond the scope of this appeal. See Docket Entry No. 13 (limiting the scope of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16352
this appeal to claims dismissed with prejudice in the district court’s August 6, 2021
order).
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).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --