Dukes v. United States

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELONIECE M. DUKES, No. 25-891 D.C. No. 2:25-cv-00284-JJT Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Meloniece M. Dukes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) as barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gregg v. Hawaii, Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 870 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 2017)

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. (dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dukes’s action as untimely because Dukes failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she presented her claim to the Department of Veterans Affairs within two years after the claim accrued or that she was otherwise entitled to equitable tolling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (setting forth the two-year statute of limitations for presentment of claims under the FTCA); Bennett v. United States, 44 F.4th 929, 933 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that a medical malpractice claim under the FTCA accrues once “a plaintiff knows of both the existence of an injury and its cause” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Redlin v. United States, 921 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2019) (outlining the requirements for equitable tolling under the FTCA).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-891