Gilbert Ramirez v. E. ROSE, Correctional Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERT RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
E. ROSE, Correctional Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-15825
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00827-TLN-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gilbert Ramirez 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. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir.
* 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
JUL 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ramirez did
not exhaust his 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) (proper exhaustion requires
“using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the
agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016) (setting forth
circumstances when administrative remedies are effectively unavailable).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --