Maximiliano Sileoni v. BIXBY, Clinician

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAXIMILIANO SILEONI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BIXBY, Clinician; BARNES, Clinician;
IDALEE LE, Clinician; HARTT, Clinician;
BOGGS, Clinician; BAUMGARTNER,
Clinician; BERRETT, Dr.; ELIASON, Dr.;
BERRY, AKA Barry, Dr.; CHRISTENSEN,
Warden; MCKAY, Deputy Warden;
PATCHETT, Dr.; HOYLE, Clinician,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-35854
D.C. No. 1:21-cv-00008-BLW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Maximiliano Sileoni, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
* 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
DEC 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35854
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his mental health needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for
summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670
F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because Sileoni 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)).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --