Danny Fabricant v. A. Miranda ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
DANNY FABRICANT, No. 21-16345
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00029-JCH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
A. MIRANDA, individually and in his/her
official capacity as Unit C-2 Case Manager;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John C. Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his action
brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
*
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).
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging an Eighth Amendment claim. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Quintero Perez v. United
States, 8 F.4th 1095, 1104 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Fabricant
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 Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en
banc) (setting forth exhaustion framework under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”)); see also Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643-44 (2016) (describing
limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are unavailable); Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (requiring PLRA exhaustion for federal
prisoners’ Bivens actions).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by partially granting
Fabricant’s requests for extensions of time to respond to defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. See FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 954-55, 957 (9th Cir. 2001)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining a district court has broad discretion
to control its docket). We do not consider Fabricant’s contention that the district
court erred by failing to provide him a copy of his own filing in light of his
acknowledged receipt of the document as part of this appeal.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fabricant’s motion
2 21-16345
for discovery because Fabricant did not show that the sought-after facts were
essential to his opposition. See Garrett v. City & County of San Francisco, 818
F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
3 21-16345