Tl Harvey v. Ak Chin Indian Community, believe to be municipal corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TL HARVEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AK CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY, believe
to be municipal corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16875
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00295-JAT-JZB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2022**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
TL Harvey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging claims arising out of his arrest. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
* 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). Harvey’s requests for oral
argument, set forth in the opening and reply briefs, are denied.
FILED
AUG 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-16875
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of the applicable statute of
limitations. TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Harvey’s action as untimely because
Harvey’s action was filed more than two years after his claims accrued. See
TwoRivers, 174 F.3d at 991-92 (explaining that federal courts apply the forum
state’s statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims for § 1983 claims,
but that federal claims accrue “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of
the injury which is the basis for the action”); Marks v. Parra, 785 F.2d 1419, 1420
(9th Cir. 1986) (establishing that Arizona’s two-year personal injury statute of
limitations applies to § 1983 claims); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (providing
two-year limitation period for personal injury claims); Taylor v. Regents of Univ.
of Cal., 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (forum state statute of limitations
governs § 1985 claims).
We do not consider Harvey’s contentions regarding tolling that were not
presented to the district court. See Alexopulos ex rel. Alexopulos v. Riles, 784 F.2d
1408, 1411 (9th Cir. 1986) (declining to consider tolling argument raised for the
first time on appeal where no “manifest injustice” would result).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Harvey’s motion
for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b) (“A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b),

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-16875
59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b).”); Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253,
1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --