Sir Giorgio Clardy v. Jones ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIR GIORGIO SANFORD CLARDY, No. 20-36056
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01241-CL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JONES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Sir Giorgio Sanford Clardy 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 equal protection claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v.
*
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).
Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Clardy failed
to exhaust administrative remedies and he failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to
him. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856, 1858-60 (2016) (setting forth
circumstances when administrative remedies are effectively unavailable);
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires “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)).
Clardy’s motion to correct the current status of the case (Docket Entry No.
18) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-36056