GARDNER v. WHATCOM COUNTY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-29No. No. 20-35794

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment dismissing Gardner's civil rights action because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit and failed to establish a genuine factual dispute regarding whether those remedies were effectively unavailable.

A Washington state prisoner filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging constitutional violations he claimed occurred during his pretrial detention. The district court dismissed the case on summary judgment, finding that Gardner had not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him before pursuing federal litigation, and that he failed to present evidence supporting a claim that those remedies were genuinely unavailable. Gardner appealed, challenging the summary judgment decision.

The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision without deference and concluded the summary judgment was properly granted. The court found that Gardner did not follow the required administrative complaint procedures or demonstrate any factual basis for why pursuing those procedures would have been futile or ineffective. Additionally, the court determined that Gardner's motion for reconsideration lacked sufficient grounds for relief under the applicable civil procedure rules.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether administrative remedies were properly exhausted before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit
Whether evidence supported a claim that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable
Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed in the record

Procedural posture

Gardner appealed pro se from a district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his pretrial detention civil rights claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoner Kier Keande Gardner appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district courts summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gardner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (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)” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also FTC v. Neovi, Inc., 604 F.3d 1150, 1159 (9th Cir. 2010) ( “[A court] need not find a genuine issue of fact if, in its determination, the particular declaration was uncorroborated and self-serving.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gardners motion for reconsideration because Gardner failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)).

Gardners motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied.

AFFIRMED.