Darin D. Greene v. State of California;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARIN D. GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16859
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01757-MCE-
CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Darin D. Greene, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging race-based lockdowns in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
FILED
JUL 31 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

novo, Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), and we
affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Greene failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies because Greene did not exhaust his grievance through the
final level of review and he did not show that administrative remedies were
effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95
(2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to
administrative procedural rules); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27
(9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances where improper screening
renders administrative remedies unavailable or where exhaustion might otherwise
be excused).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Appellee Salinas’ motion to strike Exhibit J of Greene’s opening brief, filed
on February 18, 2014, is granted. The motion is otherwise denied.
AFFIRMED.
13-16859 2

-- 2 of 2 --