Albert Vaughn Smith v. Charles L. Ryan;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT VAUGHN SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15532
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02657-MTL-ESW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Albert Vaughn Smith 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 legal
rulings on exhaustion and for clear error disputed issues of material fact. Albino v.
* 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
MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15532
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed
to 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 Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638, 642-44 (2016) (holding that an inmate
must exhaust such administrative remedies as are available before bringing suit,
and describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are
unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining 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)” (emphasis,
citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --