Eric Swain Johnson v. State of Idaho;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC SWAIN JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-35961
D.C. No. 1:21-cv-00262-BLW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Eric S. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
complaint with prejudice as legally frivolous and denying his Motion to Reconsider.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s dismissal
of a complaint on statute of limitations grounds de novo but review the district
* 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).
FILED
JUL 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
court’s underlying factual findings for clear error. EEOC v. Dinuba Med. Clinic, 222
F.3d 580, 584-85 (9th Cir. 2000). We review the denial of a Motion to Reconsider
and refusal to consider certain evidence in making that determination for abuse of
discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1261-63 (9th Cir. 1993).
I
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s complaint with prejudice
because the statute of limitations on his suit under Idaho Code § 5-219 had lapsed.
Federal courts must apply state law for tolling statutes of limitations for § 1983
actions. De Luna v. Farris, 841 F.2d 312, 314 (9th Cir. 1988). Idaho does not permit
equitable tolling in civil suits, Wilhelm v. Frampton, 158 P.3d 310, 312 (Idaho 2007),
and Johnson failed to show that he was entitled to tolling on the basis of insanity
under Idaho Code § 5-230.
The insanity language at issue was first adopted as § 170 of the 1881 Idaho
Code of Civil Procedure. At the time, there was “no general definition of legal
insanity”; rather, it was “a mental deficiency with reference to the particular act in
question.” See Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (revised 1897). The fact that Johnson
pursued his claims in Idaho state court during the period of his claimed insanity
refutes any assertion that his cognitive defects prevented him from acting in relation
to this cause of action in a timely manner.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
II
The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the 2019
Coronavirus outbreak when it denied Johnson’s Motion to Reconsider. Johnson’s
argument that the outbreak caused the Boise, Idaho law library to close could have
been raised at any point prior to his Motion to Reconsider. The outbreak is thus not
“newly discovered evidence”—it simply was not introduced in a timely manner. See
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263.
III
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s Motion to
Reconsider. There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted:
(1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact; (2) the moving
party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3)
reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) there is an
intervening change in controlling law. Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co.,
338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). Johnson did not provide any legitimate basis
for the district court to grant his motion.
AFFIRMED.1
1 The motion for default judgment is DENIED. The Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure do not provide for default judgments on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
31(c).

-- 3 of 3 --