Donald Williams v. E. Baker ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
DONALD WILLIAMS, No. 17-15406
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01155-MCE-CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
E. BAKER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Donald Williams, 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. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162,
*
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).
1171 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he exhausted his
administrative remedies before filing his lawsuit or whether administrative
remedies were “effectively unavailable.” See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90
(2006) (the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) 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)” (emphasis, citation, and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 826 (9th Cir.
2010) (PLRA does not require exhaustion when remedies are “effectively
unavailable”).
We reject as without merit Williams’s contention that the district court did
not consider his supplemental objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-15406