United States v. 2020-06-09 | 19-15420 | ISIAH LEWIS V. BENEFICIAL CALIFORNIA, INC. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISIAH LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BENEFICIAL CALIFORNIA, INC., a
subsidiary of HSBC Bank USA National
Association; BENEFICIAL
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION OF
AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15420

D.C. No. 4:17-cv-03575-KAW

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
**

Submitted June 2, 2020
***

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

JUN 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15420
Isiah Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the basis
of the applicable statute of limitations. Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d
969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave
to amend. Drew v. Equifax Info Servs., 690 F.3d 1100, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2012).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lewis’s action as barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681p (FCRA action must be
filed two years after plaintiff discovers the violation, or five years after the
violation occurs, whichever is earlier); Drew v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 690 F.3d
at 1109-10 (constructive discovery triggers FCRA’s two-year limitations period).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
Lewis’s first amended complaint because amendment would have been futile. See
Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 892 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining that denial of leave to amend is appropriate
where amendment would be futile).
We reject as unsupported by the record Lewis’s contention that the district
court failed to hold him to a less stringent standard as a pro se litigant.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

3 19-15420
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.