MacArio Marruffo v. Christopher Street
708 F. App'x 336
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Macario Ignacio Marruffo, an Arizona state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and RICO alleging multiple claims including excessive force and other constitutional violations.
- The district court dismissed most claims and granted summary judgment on the excessive force claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Marruffo appealed pro se to the Ninth Circuit; the panel reviewed dismissal and summary judgment de novo.
- The Ninth Circuit found Marruffo’s pleadings insufficient to state plausible claims for the dismissed causes of action.
- On the excessive force claim, the panel held Marruffo failed to show he properly exhausted prison administrative remedies or that remedies were effectively unavailable to him.
- The Ninth Circuit rejected Marruffo’s requests for judicial notice and two motions, and affirmed the district court’s rulings; the decision is unpublished and without oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of non-excessive-force claims | Marruffo argued his pleadings stated viable claims under § 1983 and RICO | Defendants argued pleadings lacked factual allegations to support claims | Court: Dismissal proper — pleadings not plausible under Twombly/Iqbal standards (construed with Hebbe for pro se) |
| Exhaustion for excessive force claim | Marruffo contended he exhausted or remedies were unavailable | Defendants argued he failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies | Court: Summary judgment proper — no genuine dispute that Marruffo did not properly exhaust and showed no unavailability per Albino/Woodford |
| Consideration of new arguments on appeal | Marruffo raised multiple arguments in his opening brief | Defendants opposed new or undeveloped arguments | Court: Did not consider arguments not specifically and distinctly raised in opening brief or raised first on appeal (Padgett) |
| Ancillary motions and judicial notice | Marruffo sought judicial notice and other motions | Defendants opposed | Court: Denied judicial notice and Marruffo’s two motions; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies)
- Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A)
- Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. McKinley, 360 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported basis)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings but must state plausible claim)
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (elements of access-to-courts claim)
- Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of civil RICO claim)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of prison retaliation claim)
- Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of equal protection claim)
- Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1980) (elements of conspiracy claim)
- Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (requirements for showing administrative remedies were effectively unavailable)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires using all steps the agency holds out)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (court need not consider arguments not distinctly raised in opening brief)