Dutcher 067784 v. Ryan
2:15-cv-01079
D. Ariz.Jun 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Dutcher, an Arizona state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (glaucoma leading to blindness), First Amendment retaliation, and denial of access to courts. Second Amended Complaint is the operative pleading.
- On initial screening the court found Dutcher stated Eighth Amendment claims against Corizon and Roberts and First Amendment retaliation claims against Stowe and Shields; those defendants were ordered to answer.
- Corizon moved to dismiss Dutcher’s medical-care claim as time-barred by Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims; Corizon became ADC’s healthcare contractor in March 2013 and Dutcher was diagnosed with glaucoma on March 18, 2012.
- Dutcher alleges repeated delays, denials, and interruptions in treatment from diagnosis (2012) through March 2015 and filed the federal complaint on June 12, 2015; he also alleges multiple Health Needs Requests and grievances but the complaint does not clearly show exhaustion timing.
- The court held that timeliness was not clear on the face of the complaint because (a) continuing violations or tolling during administrative exhaustion might extend the limitations period as to Corizon, and (b) claims for care after Corizon became provider could be timely; accordingly, Corizon’s motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice.
- Separately, Defendant Roberts was dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect timely service after the court’s show-cause order went unanswered by Dutcher.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dutcher’s § 1983 medical-care claim against Corizon is time-barred | Dutcher alleges ongoing denials/delays from 2012–2015 and filed suit in June 2015; administrative exhaustion and continuing violations may toll limitations | Corizon contends claim accrued at March 18, 2012 diagnosis and thus is barred because Corizon only became provider in March 2013 | Denied dismissal: timeliness not clear on face of complaint; tolling/exhaustion or continuing-violation doctrines may save claim; motion denied without prejudice |
| Whether claims for treatment occurring after Corizon became provider (March 2013) are barred | Dutcher asserts inadequate care continued under Corizon through 2015 | Corizon argues it cannot be liable for pre-contract conduct and earlier injury dates bar all claims | Court found plaintiff may state claims for care occurring during Corizon’s tenure; dismissal premature |
| Whether statute of limitations was tolled by administrative exhaustion | Dutcher alleges multiple grievances/Health Needs Requests; exhaustion timeline unclear | Corizon argues no tolling applies because claim accrued earlier | Court held exhaustion/tolling unclear from complaint; cannot resolve on Rule 12(b)(6) motion |
| Whether Defendant Roberts should remain in case despite lack of service | Dutcher did not serve Roberts and did not respond to show-cause order | Roberts sought dismissal for failure to serve | Court dismissed Roberts without prejudice for failure to effect service |
Key Cases Cited
- TwoRivers v. Lewis, 174 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1999) (statute of limitations for § 1983 borrowed from state law)
- Butler v. Nat’l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2014) (state tolling rules apply to § 1983 unless inconsistent with federal law)
- Marks v. Parra, 785 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1986) (Arizona two-year limitations for personal-injury claims governs § 1983 actions)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (federal law governs accrual of § 1983 claims)
- Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996) (claim accrues when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of injury)
- Supermail Cargo, Inc. v. U.S., 68 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 1995) (statute-of-limitations defense warrants dismissal on the face of the complaint only when untimeliness is clear)
- Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005) (statute of limitations tolled while prisoner completes mandatory administrative exhaustion)
- Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1980) (pleading must permit plaintiff to prove tolling to avoid dismissal on limitations grounds)