N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C HR ISTOPHER

PAUL POULAIN, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. G. GULIC K, Dr.; STEVE SHELTON, Dr.; M ARK NOOTH; M A X W ILLIAM S,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-35645 D.C . No. 3:09-c v-01119-AC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm itte d June 6, 2017 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : GOULD a

nd R A W LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a n d B UR NS, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED N OV 02 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble La rry A. B urns, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.C hristophe r Pa ul Poula in (Poula in) a

ppe a ls from the distric t

c o urt’ s grant of
sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nts on theba sis tha

t his a c tion brought unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 wa s untim e ly
. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting sum m a ry judgm e nt on Poula in’ s § 1983 a c tion be c a

use no m ate ria l issue of fa c t e xiste d re ga rding whe n Poula in disc ove re d his injury . Poula in’ s injury a c c rue d on Fe brua

ry 21, 2007, when he le arne d tha

t the re m ove d growth wa s be nign. Se e Bonne au v . C e nte nnial Sc h. Dist. N o. 28J , 666 F.3d 577, 581 (9th C ir. 2012) (holding tha t a “ c a use of a c tion a c c rue s whe n the pla intiff knows or ha s re a son to know of the injury .” ) (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Poula in’ s a sse rtion tha t he le arne d of the injury whe n a n unide ntifie d nurse inform e d him that a doc tor m ight ha

ve fore gone c onduc ting a

biopsy be c a use the proc e dure is “ e xpe nsive and tim e c onsum ing,”
m isse s the m ark. The nurse ’ s sta te m e nt m ight se rve a s e vide nc e of De fe n da nts’ de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e , howe ve r, e vide nc e of de libe rate indiffe re n c e is not the
sam e a s a c c rua l of a

n a c tion. Se e Luk

ov sk y v . C ity & C ty . of San Franc isc o , 535 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th C ir. 2008) (c la rify ing tha

t the c a use of a c tion a c c rue s whe n the i njury oc c urs rat

he r tha n whe n the c onse que nc e s of the a c tion a re “ fully fe lt.” ) Poula in c o nc e d e d tha

t his a c tion wa s untim e l y . Howe ve r, Poula in a s se rts that he is e ntitle d

to e quita ble tolling be c a

use he wa s proc e e ding pro se and ha d
2re stric te d

a c c e ss to thela

w libra ry . B ut the se c irc um sta

nc e s a re not

“ e x tra ordina

ry ,” a s is re quire d for e quita ble tolling. C

re dit Suisse

Se c . LLC v . Simmonds , 132 S. C t. 1414, 1419 (2012) (a pply ing the sta

t ute of lim ita

tions). A p ro se pe titione r’ s la c k of le ga l sophistic ation is not, by itse lf, a n e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e wa rranting e quita

b le tolling. Se e Ford v . Plile r , 590 F.3d 782, 789 (9th C ir. 2009). Additiona lly , we have e xpla ine d tha t “ [o] rdina

ry prison limita

tions on [a

pla intiff’ s] a c c e ss to thela w libra ry ” are “ ne ithe r e xtra ordina

ry ,” n o r do the y m ak e it “ im p ossible for him

to file his pe tition in a tim e ly m anne r.” Ramire

z v . Yate s, 571 F.3d 993, 998 (9th C i r. 2009) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). Poula in fa c e d c onditions ty pic a l of prison life , a

nd a ny re stric tions pla c e d on his a bility to prose c ute his c la im

we re not “ e xtra ordina

ry ”
suc h tha t e quita ble tolling is a

ppropria te . Se e id. (holding tha

t a pla intiff wa s not
e ntitle d to e quita

ble tolling “ s im

ply be c a u s e he re m a ine d in a dm inistra tive
se gre gation a

nd ha d lim i te d a c c e ss to thela w libra ry an d c opie r” and distinguishing suc

h c irc um sta

nc e s from the “ de n ia l a ltoge the r of a c c e ss to his pe rsona l le ga l pa

pe rs.” ). B e c a use Poula in ha s not shown tha t e x tra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s pre ve nte d him from tim e ly filing a c om pla int, it is unne c e ssa

ry to de te rm ine whe the r e quita ble tolling is a

p propria te unde r Ore gon la

w.
3AFFIRM E D.

4