describing limited circumstances where improper screening renders administrative remedies unavailable or where administrative remedies might otherwise be unavailable
How later courts described this case
- describing limited circumstances where improper screening renders administrative remedies unavailable or where administrative remedies might otherwise be unavailable
- standard of review and actual prejudice requirement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH C. SISNEROS, No. 15-56331
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00891-GPC-
RBB
v.
BROWN, Sergeant at RJ Donovan Facility; MEMORANDUM*
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Joseph C. Sisneros appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust
*
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).
administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir.
2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sisneros
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly
exhausted all steps of the grievance process, or whether administrative remedies
were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006)
(“Proper exhaustion [of administrative remedies] demands compliance with an
agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules[.]”); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623
F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances where
improper screening renders administrative remedies unavailable or where
administrative remedies might otherwise be unavailable).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sisneros’ discovery
motions because Sisneros did not show that he suffered any prejudice as a result of
the denial. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of
review and actual prejudice requirement).
We reject as unsupported by the record Sisneros’ contentions regarding the
district court’s alleged failure to appoint counsel because the record shows that
Sisneros did not properly move for appointment of counsel.
2 15-56331
AFFIRMED.
3 15-56331