Lance Elliot Williams v. BUENOSTROME, Correctional Officer;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANCE ELLIOT WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BUENOSTROME, Correctional Officer; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55393
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02345-MMA-
JLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Lance Elliot Williams appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
violations of the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment
* 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
MAY 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-55393
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162,
1168 (9th Cir. 2014). 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 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)); Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d
1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2017) (exhaustion is measured at the time the action is filed);
McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2015) (to show that a threat
rendered the prison grievance system unavailable, a prisoner must show that he
was actually deterred from filing a grievance).
We reject as without merit Williams’s contention that the district court
should have considered as evidence Williams’s unverified opposition to summary
judgment.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --