# Joseph Sisneros v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 21, 2017 · 689 F. App'x 514

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4162395

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph C. SISNEROS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROWN, Sergeant at RJ Donovan Facility; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 21, 2017
- **Citations:** 689 F. App'x 514
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gould, Clifton, Hurwitz
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 0 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/4162395

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing limited circumstances where improper screening renders administrative remedies unavailable or where administrative remedies might otherwise be unavailable

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4162395. Public record. Not legal advice.