Parnell Curtis v. California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARNELL CURTIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION AT TEHACHAPI; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16928
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00656-AWI-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Parnell Curtis, a California state prisoner, 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 excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-16928
(9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Curtis failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted
administrative remedies, or whether administrative remedies were effectively
unavailable to him. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016)
(describing limited circumstances under which administrative remedies are deemed
unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (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,
internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).
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 not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Curtis’s requests for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief, are denied.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-16928
Curtis’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 27) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --