NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENISE RAYNOLDS-MORRIS, No. 16-55800 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02280-DOC- DFM v. TRAVIS BUELL, E6569, Deputy Sheriff, in MEMORANDUM* his individual capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Denise Raynolds-Morris appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from her arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of the statute of limitations.

* 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).

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Raynolds-Morris’ action as time-barred because Raynolds-Morris failed to file her action within the applicable statute of limitations or establish any basis for equitable tolling. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code. § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Jones, 393 F.3d at 927 (statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is governed by the forum state’s limitation period for personal injury claims, including state law regarding tolling); Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 1999) (test for equitable tolling in California); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.6(a) (setting forth time limitations for commencing action against public entity).

We do not consider arguments or facts that were not presented to the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-55800