Michael Winne v. Josh Knight;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL WINNE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOSH KNIGHT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35448
D.C. No. 6:15-cv-00044-DLC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Montana state prisoner Michael Winne 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
APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-35448
(9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Winne failed
to properly exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
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); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 90-91
(2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory).
We reject as unsupported by the record Winne’s contention that the district
court was biased.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith
v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“As a general rule, we will not
consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --