Kenneth Sachs v. Barbara Kiffmeyer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH SACHS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BARBARA KIFFMEYER,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-16175
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00244-SMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth Sachs appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of state child custody
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may affirm on
any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th
* 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 3 --

2 22-16175
Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Sachs’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim was proper because it is barred
by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d
918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (§ 1983 claims are governed by the forum state’s statute
of limitations for personal injury claims); TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987, 991-
92 (9th Cir. 1999) (the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims in Arizona is two
years).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental
jurisdiction over Sachs’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)
(“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a
[state-law] claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review
and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be
futile).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees, set forth in the answering brief, is

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-16175
denied without prejudice. Sachs’s pending requests, set forth in the opening and
reply briefs, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --