HANDLESON v. CORIZON REGIONAL MEDICAL DIRECTOR (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-27No. No. 19-35187

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment dismissing Handleson's claims because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies and failed to demonstrate their unavailability, and because his claim against one defendant was time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations.

Michael Paul Handleson, an Idaho state prisoner, appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his civil rights lawsuit claiming deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by prison medical officials. The district court ruled against Handleson on two independent grounds: first, he failed to use the prison's administrative complaint procedures before filing his federal lawsuit, and he did not demonstrate that those procedures were genuinely unavailable to him; second, he filed his lawsuit against one defendant after the two-year deadline for bringing personal injury claims had passed. The appeals court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in either basis for dismissal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether prisoner exhausted required administrative remedies before filing federal civil rights claim
Whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable
Whether claim was timely filed within applicable statute of limitations

Procedural posture

Handleson appealed pro se from the district court's summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to file timely.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Idaho state prisoner Michael Paul Handleson appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in 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 district courts summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Handlesons claims against defendants Poulson, McCall, and Gelok because Handleson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ross v. Blake, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are effectively unavailable); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1171-72 (requiring inmates to exhaust administrative procedures prior to filing suit in federal court).

Summary judgment on Handlesons claim against defendant Young was proper because Handleson failed to file his action within the applicable statute of limitations period. 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 claims; 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).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.