Kier Gardner v. Whatcom County ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIER KEAND’E GARDNER, AKA Chris No. 20-35794
Gardner,
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01451-MJP
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WHATCOM COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Kier Keand’e Gardner appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations arising from his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment
*
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).
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162,
1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gardner
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 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)); see also FTC v. Neovi, Inc., 604 F.3d 1150, 1159 (9th Cir. 2010) ( “[A
court] need not find a genuine issue of fact if, in its determination, the particular
declaration was uncorroborated and self-serving.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gardner’s motion
for reconsideration because Gardner failed to establish any basis for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)).
Gardner’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-35794