Bazzill v. County of Yavapai

── Bazzill v. County of Yavapai ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RYAN EUGENE BAZZILL, No. 25-1098 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-08165-KML-- Plaintiff - Appellant, MTM v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF YAVAPAI; DENNIS McGRANE, Yavapai County Attorney; DONNA McQUALITY, Yavapai Court Clerk; KENNEDY KLAGGE, Public Defender; DAVID RHODES, Yavapai County Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Krissa M. Lanham, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Ryan Eugene Brazzill appeals pro se from the district * 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). court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pouncil v. Tilton, 704 F.3d 568, 574 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal as time-barred); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Bazzill’s action as time-barred because Bazzill failed to file the action within the applicable statute of limitations. See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the statute of limitations for § 1983 actions is the state law statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and that the applicable Arizona statute of limitations is two years); Soto v. Sweetman, 882 F.3d 865, 870 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a § 1983 claim accrues “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 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). AFFIRMED. 2 25-1098