DANIEL WEBSTER WRIGHT, AKA Abdul Hakim v. D. FIELDS, Correctional Officer, CSP- Sacramento

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL WEBSTER WRIGHT, AKA
Abdul Hakim,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. FIELDS, Correctional Officer, CSP-
Sacramento; C. DARLING, Correctional
Officer, CSP-Sacramento,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15851
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02291-KJM-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Daniel Webster Wright 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
* 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
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-15851
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191
(9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wright 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) (setting
forth circumstances when administrative remedies are unavailable, including when
“prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a grievance
process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation”); 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)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --