Theodore C. SHOVE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MCDONALD, Warden, Captain; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Chappell, Warden, Defendant.
Decided: February 07, 2020
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Theodore C. Shove, Pro Se Jeffrey Thomas Fisher, AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
California state prisoner Theodore C. Shove appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment for 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 Shove failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 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, including when “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation”); Williams, 775 F.3d at 1191 (a prisoner who does not exhaust administrative remedies must show that “there is something particular in his case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him”); see also Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 792 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth required showing for a fear of retaliation to excuse the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement).
We reject as unsupported by the record Shove’s contentions regarding judicial bias.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied as moot. All other pending motions and requests are denied.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.