eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-03

Richard Jenkins v. Kenneth Little ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD ANTHONY JENKINS,                        No. 20-35195
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00247-DCN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KENNETH LITTLE, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before:      GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Richard Anthony Jenkins appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Watison v. Carter,
    668 F.3d 1108
    , 1112 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2012) (dismissal under
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes,
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jenkins’s action because his claim was
barred by the statute of limitations. See
    Idaho Code § 5-219
    (4) (two-year statute of
limitations for personal injury actions); Soto v. Sweetman,
    882 F.3d 865
    , 871-72
(9th Cir. 2018) (state tolling and statute of limitations for personal injury claims
apply to § 1983 actions; federal law governs when a claim accrues, which is when
a plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that forms the basis for his cause of
action). Jenkins’s contention that equitable tolling or equitable estoppel should
apply is without merit. See Wilhelm v. Frampton,
    158 P.3d 310
    , 312 (Idaho 2007)
(Idaho courts cannot equitably toll statute of limitations); J.R. Simplot Co. v.
Chemetics Int’l Inc.,
    887 P.2d 1039
    , 1041 (Idaho 1994) (equitable estoppel is
available in Idaho only if plaintiff lacks actual or constructive knowledge of the
truth), abrogated on other grounds by Day as Tr. of Tr. B of Donald M. Day &
Marjorie D. Day Family Tr. v. Transportation Dep’t,
    458 P.3d 162
     (Idaho 2020).
AFFIRMED.
2                                       20-35195