Douglas Derello, Jr. v. David Shinn ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 19 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DOUGLAS WAYNE DERELLO, Jr., AKA                 No. 21-15246
    Douglas Wayne Derello,
    D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00956-MTL
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    DAVID SHINN, Director; KARR, Deputy
    Warden at SMU; CARR, First name
    unknown,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 11, 2022**
    Before:      McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
    Arizona state prisoner Douglas Wayne Derello 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 deliberate indifference to his safety. We have
    *
    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).
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo,
    
    775 F.3d 1182
    , 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Derello
    failed to exhaust administrative remedies and he 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. 642
    -45 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when
    administrative remedies are effectively unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo, 
    548 U.S. 81
    , 90 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires “using all steps that the agency holds
    out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)”
    (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    We do not consider 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).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    21-15246
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-15246

Filed Date: 4/19/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/19/2022