Case 5:17-cv-02030-DDP-AGR Document 109 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:517

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMANDO A. MARROQUIN, ) NO. EDCV 17-2030-DDP (AGR) CARPIO, ) 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND v. ) RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 14 ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHIEF COUNSEL, DHS-ICE, et al., ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 18 Complaint, the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States 19 Magistrate Judge, the objections, the response to the objections, and the records on 20 file. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation in the Report. 21 Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Plaintiff argues that the Report 22 incorrectly categorized him as a “prisoner on civil detention.” (Obj. at 2-3.) On the 23 contrary, the Report correctly noted that Plaintiff was in civil immigration detention 24 during the relevant time period.1 (Report at 7.) Plaintiff further argues that he no 25 longer has his legal documents and that the magistrate judge incorrectly denied his 26 motion for an order to obtain evidence in ICE’s possession at the Alabama facility. 27 (Obj. at 1-2.) After briefing on Plaintiff’s motion, the magistrate judge issued an order 28 1 Plaintiff was deported on October 28, 2019. (Report at 3.) Case 5:17-cv-02030-DDP-AGR Document 109 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:518

1 on June 12, 2020 denying Plaintiff’s motion based on the Certificate of Disposal of 2 Plaintiff’s property at the Gadsden, Alabama facility dated April 21, 2020.2 (Order, 3 Dkt. No. 101 at 2-3; see Certificate of Disposal, Exh. 1 to Opp., Dkt. No. 100-1.) 4 Plaintiff did not file any objections to the June 12, 2020 Order. More importantly, the 5 legal deficiencies in Plaintiff’s claims that are being dismissed do not depend on 6 documentation and could not be cured by additional documentation. 7 Plaintiff contends that the Report erred in concluding that he cannot maintain a 8 Bivens action against the defendants who work for a private corporation, GEO Group 9 Inc., that operates the ICE detention facility where he was housed. (Obj. at 3.) 10 Plaintiff has not identified any error in the Report’s legal analysis. (Report at 7-17.) 11 Moreover, the Court notes that subsequent events belie Plaintiff’s contention that the 12 denial of access to the law library hindered his ability to obtain an vacation of his 13 criminal convictions in state court. After issuance of the Report, the California Court 14 of Appeal denied Plaintiff’s motion to set aside his prior convictions for continuous 15 sexual abuse of his daughter, a child under the age of 14; criminal threat; and willful 16 infliction of corporal injury on spouse or cohabitant. Plaintiff was represented by 17 counsel on appeal. People v. Marroquin,

(Nov. 18 18, 2020). 19 Plaintiff further argues that the magistrate judge failed to take into account the 20 impact of Covid-19 on his ability to prepare objections. (Obj. at 4.) On the contrary, 21 the magistrate judge granted extensions of time totaling five months in light of the 22 difficulties presented by Plaintiff’s deportation and the Covid-19 pandemic. (Orders, 23 Dkt. Nos. 101, 103, 105.) In his last request for an extension of time, Plaintiff 24 indicated he planned to go to Mexico and anticipated having internet access there. 25 (Dkt. Nos. 104-105.) Plaintiff subsequently filed objections. 26 2 The Report noted that Plaintiff’s attorney in an Arizona action advised Plaintiff to 27 pay for shipment of the documents at the Alabama facility by December 30, 2019 because ICE would not hold on to the documents much longer. (Report at 1; Exh. A to 28 Motion, Dkt. No. 91 at 4; see Marroquin v. Fernandez-Carr, CV 16-1667 DGC (D. Az.).) 2 Case 5:17-cv-02030-DDP-AGR Document 109 Filed 03/23/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:519

1 Plaintiff’s remaining objections are without merit. The Ninth Circuit’s recent 2 decision in Boule v. Egbert, 2020 U.S App. LEXIS 36559 (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020), 3 does not alter the Report’s conclusion as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims. 4 (Report at 13-15, 22.) 5 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended 6 Complaint is granted as follows: 7 1. The motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Warden Allen, Assistant 8 Warden Semaia, Lieutenant Reveterian, Lieutenant Doran, Captain 9 Dutcher, Chief of Security Johnson, and Law Library Clerk Williams 10 (“GEO Defendants”) is granted without leave to amend. All claims 11 against these defendants and Dr. Medrano are dismissed without leave 12 to amend. 13 2. The motion to dismiss filed by former Attorney General Barr, Albence, 14 Homan, Hamm, Russi and Valdez (“Federal Defendants”) is granted. All 15 official capacity claims are dismissed without leave to amend. 16 3. The individual capacity claims against the Federal Defendants are 17 dismissed as follows: 18 a. The medical care claims against Defendants Barr, Homan and 19 Albence, and the First Amendment and conditions of confinement 20 claims against all Federal Defendants are dismissed without leave 21 to amend. 22 B. The medical care claims against Defendants Hamm, Russi and 23 Valdez are dismissed with leave to file a Second Amended 24 Complaint alleging the medical care claims against Defendants 25 Hamm, Russi and Valdez in accordance with the legal standards 26 in the Report within 30 days after entry of this order. 27 If Plaintiff chooses to file a Second Amended Complaint as described above, it 28 must be filed within 30 days after entry of this Order, it must bear the docket number 3 se 5:17-cv-02030-DDP-AGR Document 109 Filed 03/23/22 Page 4of4 Page ID #:520

1 || assigned to this case, be labeled “Second Amended Complaint,” and be complete in 2 || and of itself without reference to a prior complaint, attachment, pleading or other 3 || documents. 4 The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a blank civil rights complaint 5 || form. 6 Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to file a timely Second Amended 7 || Complaint as described above within 30 days after the entry of this order, this 8 | action may be dismissed. 9 (| VO 10 iP van fl Fe Uae 11 || DATED: March 23, 2022

12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28