Crispin Granados v. Arizona, State Of ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISPIN GRANADOS, No. 22-15425
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01099-SPL-MHB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ARIZONA, STATE OF; DAVID SHINN,
Director, Director of ADOC; CARRILLO,
CO III, aka per Doc 21 #5382 also known as
David Carrillo; AVANT-ORTIZ, Nurse
Practitioner; DRAKE, CO II, aka per Doc 21
#11869 also known as Jeffrey Drake,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Crispin Granados appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217,
1222 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Granados
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable
to him. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642-44 (2016) (explaining that an inmate
must exhaust such administrative remedies as are available before bringing an
action, and describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are
unavailable); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (once the
defendant has carried the burden to prove there was an available administrative
remedy, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence showing that
administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him).
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).
Granados’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 22-15425