John Wesley Williams v. S. ALFARO, Associate Director of CDCR;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S. ALFARO, Associate Director of CDCR;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16205
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01310-AWI-JLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner John Wesley Williams 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 federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir.
* 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
DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-16205
2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Williams
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable.
See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 635, 638, 641-44 (2016) (explaining that an
inmate must exhaust such administrative remedies as are available before filing an
action, and describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are
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
and internal quotation marks omitted)); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172 (explaining that
once the defendant has carried the burden to prove that there was an available
administrative remedy, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence
showing that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams’s request
to stay summary judgment pending additional discovery because Williams failed to
show that the discovery he sought was essential to oppose summary judgment. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); Midbrook Flowerbulbs Holland B.V. v. Holland Am. Bulb
Farms, Inc., 874 F.3d 604, 614, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review, and
explaining that to prevail on a Rule 56(d) request, a party must state the specific

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-16205
facts it seeks in further discovery, and show that such facts exist and are “essential
to oppose summary judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --