The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
17-16379•ANTHONY BERNARD SMITH, Jr. v. STEVE ALBRITTON, Associate Warden; S. KLUGER, Correctional Lt.
17-16379Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 22, 2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY BERNARD SMITH, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEVE ALBRITTON, Associate Warden;
S. KLUGER, Correctional Lt.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16379
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-00156-LHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Anthony Bernard Smith, Jr., appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to daytime congregational prayer. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo,
* 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
AUG 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 17-16379
775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed
to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, and failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether there was “something in his particular case
that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively
unavailable to him.” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2014) (en
banc); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (requiring proper
exhaustion, 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)). Contrary to Smith’s contention,
the 2013 group grievance was not duplicative of the issues raised in this case.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.