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 district court's summary judgment is affirmed because Handleson failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required before bringing suit against three defendants, and his claim against the fourth defendant was barred by the statute of limitations.

Michael Paul Handleson, an Idaho state prisoner, appealed a district court's summary judgment dismissing his federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that prison medical personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Handleson challenged the dismissal on behalf of three defendants and separately on behalf of a fourth defendant. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision and found no error in either ruling.

Regarding three of the defendants, the district court properly determined that Handleson had not followed the required administrative complaint procedures before filing his federal lawsuit, and he did not establish that those procedures were genuinely unavailable to him. As for the fourth defendant, the district court correctly applied the applicable statute of limitations for personal injury claims, finding that Handleson's lawsuit was filed too late under state law principles that apply to federal civil rights claims.

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

Key issues

Whether prisoner exhausted administrative remedies before filing federal civil rights claim
Whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to prisoner
Whether claim was timely filed under applicable statute of limitations for personal injury actions

Procedural posture

The district court granted summary judgment on a § 1983 deliberate indifference claim, and the prisoner appealed pro se to the circuit court.

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.