Opinion
20-15007
11-08-2022
ROBERT JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA, in relation to the Nevada Department of Corrections, Defendant, BRIAN WILLIAMS, Warden, in his official capacity, Defendant, and E. K. MCDANIEL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 4, 2022 San Francisco, California
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 No. 2:16-cv-00995-APG-NJK for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Before: WALLACE, O'SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Robert Jackson appeals from the district court's orders granting the Defendants summary judgment on Counts Two and Three. We review a district court's summary judgment de novo. Torres v. City of Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2011). As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the Defendants. Jackson's failure to cure procedural defects identified by prison officials means that the merits of Jackson's claims have not been addressed by such officials, and Jackson's administrative remedies remain unexhausted. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (holding that to exhaust administrative remedies, a prisoner must complete "all [the] steps the agency holds out . . . properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)"); Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1853 (2016) (holding that exhaustion requirements must be applied even where "a prisoner makes a reasonable mistake about the meaning of a prison's grievance procedures").
Although Jackson argues that administrative remedies are unavailable, he fails to identify any evidence to support his claim. Because there is significant evidence that Jackson's grievances were rejected for valid procedural reasons, no reasonable jury could find the defendants liable. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986) ("If the defendant in a . . . civil case moves for summary judgment . . . [the inquiry is] whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict").
The judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).