Ra’tah B. Meniooh v. Dennis Gagnon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RA’TAH B. MENIOOH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DENNIS GAGNON; STANLEY
HARKNESS, Sued in his individual and
official capacities; CITY AND COUNTY
OF HUMBOLDT; STEPHEN WATSON,
Sued in his official capacity; CITY OF
EUREKA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16854
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-08495-VC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Ra’Tah B. Meniooh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth and
* 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 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16854
Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a district court’s dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of
limitations and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix,
Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Meniooh’s action as time-barred
because Meniooh’s claims accrued more than two years before Meniooh filed this
action. See Lockett v. County of Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 740 (9th Cir. 2020)
(for §1983 claims, federal courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations;
California’s statute of limitations is two years for personal injury actions).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --