Leon Eugene Morris v. K. Turner;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEON EUGENE MORRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
K. TURNER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15686
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Leon Eugene Morris appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
* 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
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-15686
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Morris did
not exhaust administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to
him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (a prisoner must properly
exhaust “which means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so
properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis,
citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813,
823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances under which
exhaustion may be effectively unavailable).
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).
Morris’s motion for leave to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 40) is
granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 41.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --