Eric Beauchamp v. D. Doglietto ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC C. BEAUCHAMP, No. 15-15616
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-02098-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
D. J. DOGLIETTO, Officer; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Eric C. Beauchamp appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force,
deliberate indifference to medical needs, and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010)
(dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Beauchamp’s
federal claims because Beauchamp failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether he properly exhausted administrative remedies or whether
administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Ross v. Blake,
136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative
remedies are unavailable, including when “prison administrators thwart inmates
from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination,
misrepresentation, or intimidation”); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006)
(“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . means using all steps that the
agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on
the merits).” (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)); Sapp v.
Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited
circumstances where improper screening renders administrative remedies
unavailable or where exhaustion might otherwise be excused).
The district court properly dismissed Beauchamp’s state law assault and
2 15-15616
battery claim as time-barred because, even with the benefit of all arguably
applicable equitable tolling, Beauchamp failed to file this action within the
applicable statute of limitations. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 945.6(a)(1) (action must
be commenced no more than six months after the notice of rejection of the
government tort claim is mailed); Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.
1999) (three-pronged test for equitable tolling in California).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15616