Quitugua v. Quitugua

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 28, 2026
• Docket: 25-7753
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDDIE LAWRENCE QUITUGUA, No. 25-7753 D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00036 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* DONNA P. QUITUGUA, an individual; RYAN C.P. QUITUGUA, an individual; NACRINA F. MENDIOLA, an individual; F. RANDALL CUNLIFFE, an individual; LISA P. CRUZ, individually and in her official capacity as a Land Abstractor II employee with the Department of Land Management; JOSEPH M. BORJA, in his official capacity only as the Director of the Department of Land Management; GUAM OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, as a government entity for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief only,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

NICOLAS E. TOFT, individually and in his official capacity as the Assistant Attorney General for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief under under Ex Parte

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Young,

Defendant.

Appeal from the District Court of Guam Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 22, 2026**

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Eddie Lawrence Quitugua appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims stemming

from a Guam Superior Court unlawful detainer case. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of the statute of limitations. Mills v.

City of Covina, 921 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Quitugua’s action because Quitugua

filed his complaint outside the applicable statute of limitations, and Quitugua has

provided no basis for equitable tolling under Guam law. See Soto v. Sweetman,

882 F.3d 865, 871 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that “[f]ederal courts in § 1983

actions apply the [forum] state statute of limitations from personal-injury claims

and borrow the state’s tolling rules”); 7 Guam Code Ann. § 11306(a) (setting forth

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 25-7753 two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims); Ignacio v. People, 2012

Guam 14 ¶ 42 n.4 (explaining that Guam “has not adopted equitable tolling outside

of the narrow context of insurance claims”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 25-7753