LAW.coLAW.co

RAMIREZ v. ROSE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-26No. No. 20-15825

Summary

Holding. The district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant was affirmed because the prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by law.

Gilbert Ramirez, a California state prisoner, appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his excessive force claim brought under federal civil rights law. Ramirez failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available through the prison system before filing his lawsuit, which is a mandatory prerequisite to such claims. The district court properly determined that Ramirez had not completed all required administrative steps and that he did not present evidence showing those remedies were genuinely unavailable to him.

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

Key issues

  • Whether prisoner exhausted required administrative remedies before filing § 1983 lawsuit
  • Whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to the prisoner
  • Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding exhaustion

Procedural posture

The prisoner appealed pro se from the district court's grant of summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in a § 1983 excessive force action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Gilbert Ramirez appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ramirez did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. 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 Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are effectively unavailable).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.