James C. Warren v. STEWART ANDREWS, M.D., in his individual and official capacities;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES C. WARREN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEWART ANDREWS, M.D., in his
individual and official capacities; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-36001
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01934-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Former Washington state prisoner James C. Warren 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 a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Belanus v.
* 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 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-36001
Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Warren’s action because the complaint
was filed more than three years after the accrual of the claims and the operative
pleading did not allege facts sufficient to support equitable tolling. See Wallace v.
Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 387, 394 (2007) (federal courts in § 1983 actions apply the
state statute of limitations from personal injury actions and borrow applicable
tolling provisions from state law); Bagley v. CMC Real Estate Corp., 923 F.2d
758, 760 (9th Cir. 1991) (statute of limitations in Washington is three years); In re
Bonds, 196 P.3d 672, 676 (Wa. 2008) (equitable tolling should be used “sparingly”
and is only allowed when justice requires and when the predicates of bad faith,
deception, or false assurances by the defendant and the exercise of diligence by the
plaintiff are met).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --