Timothy Crayton v. Randy Grounds ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 19 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TIMOTHY CRAYTON,                                No.    17-15637
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:15-cv-03900-BLF
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Warden,
    Retired; W. L. MUNIZ, Warden, Successor,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 12, 2018**
    Before:      LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    Timothy Crayton, a California 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. Furnace v. Sullivan, 
    705 F.3d 1021
    ,
    *
    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).
    1026 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Crayton
    failed to exhaust administrative remedies or raise a genuine dispute of material fact
    as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See
    Woodford v. Ngo, 
    548 U.S. 81
    , 90 (2006) (the Prison Litigation Reform Act
    requires “proper exhaustion,” which means “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)); Griffin v. Arpaio, 
    557 F.3d 1117
    ,
    1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] grievance [only] suffices if it alerts the prison to the
    nature of the wrong for which redress is sought” (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted)).
    We reject as unsupported by the record Crayton’s contentions that
    defendants should be sanctioned for misconduct regarding discovery.
    Crayton’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 13) is granted.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    17-15637
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-15637

Filed Date: 9/19/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021