Opinion
21-15409
06-27-2022
DAVID BURNS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TASHEENA SANDOVAL; CLARK; WALTER ROMERO; HAL HOLLINGSWORTH; HAROLD BYRNE; WILLIAM GITTERE; HEALER; TRAVIS, C/O; HAMMEL; UNDERWOOD, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00086-MMD- CLB
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Nevada state prisoner David Burns appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to safety and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Burns 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 (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)" (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (once the defendant has carried the burden to prove there was an available administrative remedy, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence showing that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).