Richard Anthony Jenkins v. Kenneth Little, M.d.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD ANTHONY JENKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KENNETH LITTLE, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-35195
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00247-DCN
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
MAR 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35195
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 of 2 --