From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whatley v. Nanez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nov 4, 2016
No. 15-55813 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016)

Summary

noting Ross, and holding that “Whatley's contention that he did not have to exhaust because he brought a civil suit seeking money damages is unpersuasive.”

Summary of this case from Melendez v. Diaz

Opinion

No. 15-55813

11-04-2016

REGINALD WAYNE WHATLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER NANEZ, his individual capacity; Defendant-Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 5:13-cv-01796-DOC-MRW MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

California state prisoner Reginald Wayne Whatley 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 on the basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Whatley failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") and failed to demonstrate that prison officials interfered with the grievance process. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856, 1860 (2016) (proper administrative exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory, but may not be required when "prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation"). Whatley's contention that he did not have to exhaust because he brought a civil suit seeking money damages is unpersuasive. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n.6 (2001) (administrative exhaustion is required under the PLRA regardless of "the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues").

Whatley's motion for leave to exhaust administrative remedies, filed on June 6, 2016, is denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Whatley v. Nanez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Nov 4, 2016
No. 15-55813 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016)

noting Ross, and holding that “Whatley's contention that he did not have to exhaust because he brought a civil suit seeking money damages is unpersuasive.”

Summary of this case from Melendez v. Diaz
Case details for

Whatley v. Nanez

Case Details

Full title:REGINALD WAYNE WHATLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 4, 2016

Citations

No. 15-55813 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016)

Citing Cases

Spellman v. Paramo

Therefore, because exhaustion is an affirmative defense, Defendants "will have to present probative evidence…

Melendez v. Diaz

To the extent Plaintiffs contend the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Ross undermines the continuing effect…