Shipley

Shipley v. D'Amico

Good Law
258 F. App'x 924
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 10, 2007No. 06-15943California243 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ronald Shipley, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Delta Savings Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1021 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Because Shipley filed his complaint more than two years after the alleged Eighth Amendment violations, the district court correctly concluded counts I, II, and III were barred by the statute of limitations. See Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.190(4)(e); see also Johnson v. California, 207 F.3d 650, 653 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (federal courts should borrow the state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims from the state in section 1983 actions).

Furthermore, the district court properly granted summary judgment as to counts IV and V, because Shipley failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants acted with deliberate indifference in treating his hepatitis. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (explaining that a difference in opinion…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.