NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
JAN 27 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL PAUL HANDLESON, No. 19-35187
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00216-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CORIZON REGIONAL MEDICAL
DIRECTOR; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Michael Paul Handleson appeals pro se from the district
court’s 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 court’s summary judgment for failure to
*
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).
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 Handleson’s
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 (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, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (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 Handleson’s 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
2 19-35187
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.
3 19-35187