Noah Schroder v. Jay Christensen

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOAH SCHRODER, No. 22-35006
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00583-DCN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAY CHRISTENSEN, Warden; BON JOVI,
Sergeant; BURRUS, Officer; TAYLOR,
Sergeant,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
RONA SIEGERT; REESE, PA; CHRIS
JOHNSON,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Noah Schroder, an Idaho 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 F.3d 1162,
1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Schroder’s claim
related to the May 1, 2020 injury because Schroder 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 suit, and describing
limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are unavailable);
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90–91 (2006) (exhaustion requires compliance with
prison deadlines and other procedural rules).
The district court also granted summary judgment on Schroder’s conditions-
of-confinement claim alleging that prison officials failed to remedy the flooding in
his cell in October 2020. The district court determined that although Schroder
fully exhausted his October grievance related to this claim, that grievance was
insufficient to exhaust his claim for damages because the grievance asked the
prison to fix the leak in his cell and did not seek damages. However, Schroder’s
2 22-35006
October grievance was sufficient to put the prison on adequate notice of the
continued flooding in his cell, which is all that is required. See Griffin v. Arpaio,
557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (the primary purpose of a grievance is to alert
the prison to a problem and facilitate its resolution, and a grievance suffices if it
alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought); see also
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001) (requiring a prisoner to exhaust
administrative remedies even when the prisoner’s suit seeks monetary damages
that are unavailable through the prison’s grievance process). Because Schroder
exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to this claim, we reverse and
remand for further proceedings on this claim only.
The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
3 22-35006