William F. Jensen v. State of Washington, by

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM F. JENSEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, by and
through its office of Governor and by and
through its Washington State Department of
Corrections; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35579
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01963-MJP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 4, 2019
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOULD and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and R. COLLINS,** District
Judge.
Appellant William F. Jensen appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35579
district court’s decision de novo, Ah Quin v. Cty. of Kauai Dep’t of Transp.,
733 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 2013), we affirm.
Appellant is an inmate in a Washington State Department of Corrections
facility. Appellant asserts that in 2010 he witnessed a correctional officer
physically and sexually threaten another inmate and Appellant reported the
correctional officer’s behavior. After reporting, Appellant alleges that the
correctional staff began retaliating against him. Subsequently, Appellant brought
suit and the district court dismissed Appellant’s case as time-barred.
The district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s claim was proper. The parties
did not dispute that the applicable statute of limitations for Appellant’s cause of
action was three years. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266–67, 276 (1985);
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080. The actions that gave rise to Appellant’s Complaint
took place in 2010 and 2011. Appellant did not file his Complaint until December
22, 2016.
On appeal, Appellant asserts that his cause of action was subject to a Heck
bar and is timely. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). However,
an appellant’s argument will not be considered where it is raised for the first time
on appeal. See Bolker v. Comm’r, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985). Because
Appellant did not raise his Heck argument below, it is deemed waived.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --