MATTHEWS v. LILES (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Ivan Lee Matthews 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 a retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Matthews’s retaliation claim because Matthews failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Ross v. Blake, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (explaining that an inmate must exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before bringing suit, and describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are unavailable (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies ․ means 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)).

We reject as without merit Matthews’s contention that the district court erred by considering the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies for the first time on summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.