MEMORANDUM **
Oregon state prisoner Richard Anthony Jenkins appeals pro se from the district courts 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. 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 Jenkinss 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). Jenkinss contention that equitable tolling or equitable estoppel should apply is without merit. See Wilhelm v. Frampton, 144 Idaho 147, 158 P.3d 310, 312 (2007) (Idaho courts cannot equitably toll statute of limitations); J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics Intl Inc., 126 Idaho 532, 887 P.2d 1039, 1041 (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 Dept, 166 Idaho 293, 458 P.3d 162 (2020).
AFFIRMED.