Maurice Washington v. A. Ayon ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURICE WASHINGTON, No. 18-56078
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-09113-JVS-
MRW
v.
A. AYON, Correctional Officer, sued in MEMORANDUM*
their individual capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019*
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Maurice Washington, a California state prisoner, 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 Eighth Amendment claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747
*
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).
F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Washington
failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to
him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (the Prison Litigation Reform
Act requires “proper exhaustion . . . which means using all steps that the agency
holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the
merits)” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ross v. Blake,
136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative
remedies are unavailable).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Washington’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening
brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-56078