Armando Marroquin v. Yolanda Fernandez-Carr
671 F. App'x 440
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Armando Antonio Marroquin, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference, retaliation, and denial of access to courts against multiple defendants.
- District court dismissed some claims and granted summary judgment on others; Marroquin appealed pro se.
- Deliberate indifference and retaliation claims against Ward and Hudson were time-barred under Arizona’s two-year personal-injury statute of limitations; Marroquin did not plausibly allege tolling.
- Access-to-courts claim against Fernandez-Carr and Prince failed on summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; Marroquin did not show remedies were effectively unavailable.
- Claim against Wilkinson was dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service under Rule 4(m); Marroquin provided insufficient information to the U.S. Marshal.
- Motion to appoint counsel was denied; district court found no exceptional circumstances. Other procedural complaints (evidence access, forms, motions, judicial bias) were rejected as unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for deliberate indifference/retaliation | Marroquin argued claims were timely or tolled | Defendants argued Arizona two-year limitations bar claims; no tolling shown | Claims against Ward and Hudson barred by limitations; dismissal affirmed |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies (access-to-courts) | Marroquin argued he exhausted or remedies were unavailable | Defendants argued Marroquin failed to complete grievance steps | Summary judgment for Fernandez-Carr and Prince affirmed for failure to properly exhaust |
| Failure to serve defendant (Rule 4(m)) | Marroquin contended service was not his fault / Marshal failed | Defendants argued no timely service or sufficient info for Marshal | Dismissal without prejudice of claim against Wilkinson affirmed for failure to serve |
| Appointment of counsel | Marroquin requested counsel due to complexity / inability to litigate | Defendants argued no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment | Denial affirmed; Marroquin did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015) (review standard for failure to exhaust defenses)
- Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (state personal-injury statute of limitations and tolling rules apply to § 1983 actions)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with an agency’s critical procedural rules)
- Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2010) (circumstances when administrative remedies are effectively unavailable)
- Thompson v. Maldonado, 309 F.3d 107 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for service issues)
- Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1994) (prisoner must provide sufficient information for Marshal to effect service)
- Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (noting limits on earlier prisoner-law jurisprudence)