Case Explained: SHOTWELL V. CHAVEZ-EPPERSON, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-07

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials in a civil rights action brought by a California prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, holding that Shotwell’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court applied the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions in California, which is tolled for an additional two years for prisoners incarcerated for less than life, providing a total four-year filing window. The court determined that Shotwell’s claims accrued prior to June 16, 2011, rendering them untimely when filed in April 2016. Regarding the continuing violations doctrine previously remanded by this court, the district court correctly found that the alleged grievance processing and mail interference were discrete acts rather than a continuing violation; under *Bird v. Dept. of Human Serv.*, discrete acts are not actionable if time-barred even when related to timely filed charges. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Defendant Chavez-Epperson for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, noting that Shotwell failed to file timely grievances or complete the grievance process as required by the PLRA. Claims against Defendants Garcia and Smith were dismissed as untimely based on cell searches occurring in 2010 and 2011, while the claim against Defendant Medina was affirmed on the merits of retaliation without addressing exhaustion, consistent with *Perttu v. Richards*. The court also upheld the denial of a motion to appoint counsel, finding Shotwell capable of prosecuting the case pro se. The practical consequence is that the judgment in favor of the defendants stands, and Shotwell’s lawsuit is dismissed with no relief granted.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.