Gregory Krug v. Evelyn Castro

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY CHARLES KRUG, No. 14-55549
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-06398-PA-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EVELYN G. CASTRO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Gregory Charles Krug appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his
action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Krug failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies because Krug did not exhaust his relevant grievances to
the final level of review before presenting his claims to the district court, and he
did not show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion”
is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (exhaustion requirement applies to federal
prisoners suing under Bivens); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27
(9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances where improper screening
renders administrative remedies unavailable or where exhaustion might otherwise
be excused).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Krug’s motion for
reconsideration because Krug failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and explaining circumstances
warranting reconsideration).
2 14-55549
Krug’s motion to extend the time to file a reply brief, filed on March 23,
2015, is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief received on April 6, 2015.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-55549