Derek Wardlaw v. J. MERINO, Individual;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEREK WARDLAW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. MERINO, Individual; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-56242
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03840-JAK-KES
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Derek Wardlaw, a former pretrial detainee at the Twin Towers Correctional
Facility supervised by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 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 constitutional violations. We
* 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
NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-56242
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca,
747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wardlaw
failed to exhaust his 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. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct.
1850, 1856, 1858-60 (2016) (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) (“[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 and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias,
921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Wardlaw motion for default judgment is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --