# Amazing Stewart v. L. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 20, 2014 · 584 F. App'x 613

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2719515

## Case

- **Full name:** Amazing STEWART, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. BROWN; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 20, 2014
- **Citations:** 584 F. App'x 613
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Schroeder, Thomas, Hurwitz
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2719515

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that a grievance challenging RVR findings 24 related to an assault was not sufficient to exhaust a failure to protect claim related to that 25 assault

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 20 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

AMAZING STEWART, No. 13-15178

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01093-LJO-JLT

v.
MEMORANDUM*
L. BROWN; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2014**

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Amazing Stewart appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a failure-to-protect claim. We have jurisdiction

*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821

(9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Stewart failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies because Stewart did not notify prison officials as to the

nature of the wrong underlying his failure-to-protect claim in a timely manner. See

id. at 818, 821-24 (describing standard for proper exhaustion and explaining that

an inmate’s grievance must comply with time limits and provide enough

information to alert prison officials to the nature of the wrong for which redress is

sought); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2009) (grievance must

give sufficient notice of claim).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-15178

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2719515. Public record. Not legal advice.