Steve Crump v. S. Sanchez , 698 F. App'x 439 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 4 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    STEVE CRUMP,                                    No. 15-55961
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01296-CAB-
    BLM
    v.
    S. SANCHEZ, Captain; et al.,                    MEMORANDUM*
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 26, 2017**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Steve Crump, 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 retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo, Williams v. Paramo, 
    775 F.3d 1182
    , 1191 (9th
    *
    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).
    Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Crump did
    not properly exhaust his grievances to the final level of review or show that
    exhaustion was effectively unavailable. See Woodford v. Ngo, 
    548 U.S. 81
    , 90
    (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . 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.”); see also
    Sapp v. Kimbrell, 
    623 F.3d 813
    , 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not required
    where administrative remedies are rendered “effectively unavailable”).
    We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal or 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).
    Crump’s motion to file his opening brief as nunc pro tunc (Docket Entry No.
    3) is denied as moot.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     15-55961
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-55961

Citation Numbers: 698 F. App'x 439

Filed Date: 10/4/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023