Johnny Lee Howze v. Access Securepak, a Missouri corporation; ERIKA FRAZIER, Owner of said corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY LEE HOWZE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ACCESS SECUREPAK, a Missouri
corporation; ERIKA FRAZIER, Owner of
said corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-56330
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00474-TJH-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Johnny Lee Howze appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a claim under the federal
Magnusson–Moss Warranty Act and state law claims. We have jurisdiction 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).
FILED
APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-56330
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lukovsky v. City & County of San
Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal on the basis of the
statute of limitations); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Howze’s action because Howze’s
claims are time-barred. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d) (three-year statute of
limitations for fraud claim); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 (four-year statute of
limitations for unfair business practices claim); Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc., 95
Cal. Rptr. 3d 285, 292 (Ct. App. 2009) (four-year statute of limitations for breach
of warranty claim under California’s Song-Beverly Act); see also Hooper v.
Lockheed Martin Corp., 688 F.3d 1037, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2012) (when a federal
statute contains no express limitations period, the court applies the most closely
analogous state limitations period).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --