T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T C L AU DE L L E AR L MAR T I N, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J E A N N E S . W O O D F O R D , D i r e c t orof D e p a rtm e n t o f

C o rr e c tio n s ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 15830 D . C . N o . 1 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 4 1 5 - L J O - S MS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a w r e nc e J . O ’ N e i l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2012 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C l aude l l E a r l M a rt i n, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to h is s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s , a n dr e ta lia tio n f o rf ilin g g r ie v a n c e s . W e 

# FI LED JAN 03 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 15830 2 h av e ju risd icti o n u n d er2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r ev iew d e n o v o th e d istrict co u rt’s d is m is s a l o n th e b a s is o f th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s a n du n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , Ch o l la R ea d y Mi x, In c. v. C i vish , 38 2 F . 3d 96 9, 97 3 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d its s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, T oguc hivChung , 39 1 F . 3d 10 51 , 10 56 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). W e r evi ew for an abu se of di sc re t i on the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on w hether to ap p lye q u itab le e s to p p e l a n d e q u itab le to llin g . L eongv. P ot ter , 347 F . 3d 1117, 1 1 2 1 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dM a rtin ’s d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e c la im agai nstM cG ui ness on the basi s of the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s bec ause M art i n fai l ed to f ile h is c o m p la in t w ith in tw o y e a r s o f th e f in a l r e je c tio n o f

h is ap p e a l o f

h is g r ie v a n c e . See C a l . C i v. P r oc . C ode § 335. 1 ( tw o- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons f

or p e r s o n a l in

ju ryc la im s ) ; T

w o R iv e rs v . L e w is , 174 F . 3d 987, 991- 92 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( i n § 1983 a c t i ons , f

e de r a l c ourt s borr ow f

r om the f orum s t a t e the s t a tut e of l i m i t at i on s app l i cabl e t o p er sonal i nj ury c l ai m s and t ol l i ng rul es , bu tfe dera l l aw de t e rm i ne s w he n ac l a i m a c c rue d; unde rf e de r a l l a w , ac l a i m a c c rue s w he n the pl a i nt i f f know s orha s r e a s on t o know of the i nj uryw hi c h i s the ba s i s of the a c tio n ) ; s e e a ls o B r o w n v . V a lo ff , 422 F . 3d 926, 943 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( “ [ T ] he appl i c abl e s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons m us tbe t ol l e d w hi l e apr i s one rc om pl e t e s the m a n d a to rye x h au s tio n p r o c e s s .” ) . C o n tr a ryto M a rtin ’s c o n te n tio n , e q u itab le11- 15830 3 e s t oppe l doe s notappl ybe c aus e no pr i s on of f i c i a l pr e ve nt e d M a rt i n f r om br i ngi ng h is c la im , o rm is r e p r e s e n te d o rc o n c e a le din f o rm a tio n p e rtin e n t to th e c la im . See L ukovsk y v . C i t y & C ou nt

y of Sa n Francisc o , 53 5 F . 3d 10 44 , 10 51 -52 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( di sc ussi ng re qu i re m ent s f or equi t abl e e st op pel un der C al i forni a l aw ). T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n ted su m m ary ju d g m en t fo r P atel o n M ar ti n ’s de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e c l a i m be c aus e M a rt i n f a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e of m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rP a te l k n e w o f a n dd is r e g a r d e da n e x c e s s iv e r is kto h is h e a rt c o n d itio n . Se e T

oguc hi , 3 9 1 F .3 da t 1 0 5 7 ( ap r is o n o f f ic ia l is d e lib e r a te ly in d iffe re n t o n ly if h e k n o w s o f a n dd isre g ar d s a n ex ce ss iv e r iskto an in m ate’s heal th). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e ntf orF i s he ra nd T h o m a s o n M a rtin ’s r e ta lia tio n c la im b e c au s e M a rtin f a ile dto r a is e atr iab le d is p u te a s to w h e th e rth e s e d e f e n d a n ts to o ka d v e r s e a c tio n a g a in s t h im . Se e R hode s v . R obi ns on , 408 F . 3d 559, 567- 68 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( di s c us s i ng el em ent s of are t al i at i on cl ai m ). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entfor H enryand F l ory o n M a rtin ’s r e ta lia tio n c la im b e c au s e M a rtin f a ile dto r a is e atr iab le d is p u te a s to w h e th e rth e s e d e f

e n d a n ts a c te d w ith r e ta lia to ryin te n t, a n dw h e th e rh is tr a n s f e rd id n o t a d v a n c e ale g itim a te , p e n o lo g ic a l in te r e s t. Se e id .; see a l so P r at t v . R ow land ,11- 15830 4 6 5 F .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 0 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t tim in g w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to es t abl i sh re t al i at ory i nt entw here there w as no evi dence thatthe defendant s had kn ow l edge of the pl ai nt i ff’ s prot ec t ed ac t i vi ty) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bye xt e ndi ng the t i m e f or defe nd ant s t o fi l e adi sposi t i ve m ot i on because the l ength o f the del ayw as bri ef , de f e nda nt s ga ve s e ve r a l r e a s ons f orthe i rr e que s t s , a nd the r e w a s no e vi de nc e of b a d f a ith o rp r e

ju d ic e . Se e Zi v kov i c v . S. Cal. E dis on C o. , 302 F . 3d 1080, 1087 (9th C i r. 20 02 ) ( di sc ussi ng the st andard of revi ew and a di stri ctcourt ’ s broad di sc re t i on i n sup ervi si ng the pretri al ph as e of l i t i gat i on ); se e al so P i ncay v. An dr e ws , 3 8 9 F .3 d 8 5 3 , 8 5 5 -5 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ex p lain in g th at an atto rn ey ’s ca l endari ng error does notre nd erthe negl ec ti nexcusabl e) . M a rtin ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e w a s b ia s e da g a in s t h im is r e j e c t e d. AF F I RME D.