Felipe Diaz v. T. Lindquist ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIPE DIAZ, No. 20-55571
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01982-FMO-JDE
v.
*
T. LINDQUIST, Law Library Coordinator at MEMORANDUM
SCP-SAC A-Yard; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Felipe Diaz appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging excessive force and other constitutional violations. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo legal rulings on
*
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).
exhaustion. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Diaz failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively
unavailable. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643-44 (2016) (describing limited
circumstances in which administrative remedies are unavailable); Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (concluding exhaustion under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act requires complying “with an agency’s deadlines and other critical
procedural rules”).”
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-55571