Jimmy D. Bizzell v. King County Department of Adult

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIMMY D. BIZZELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
ADULT AND JUVENILE DETENTION,
AKA RJC, Maleng Regional Justice Center,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-36031
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00401-JLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jimmy D. Bizzell, a former pretrial detainee, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his inability to access religious services, meals,
* 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
OCT 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-36031
and head coverings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168-71 (summary judgment is proper
procedural vehicle for determining exhaustion). We affirm.
Summary judgment was proper because Bizzell failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted administrative
remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him.
See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016) (describing limited
circumstances under which administrative remedies are deemed unavailable);
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that proper exhaustion is
mandatory); see also Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[A]
district court must dismiss a case without prejudice when there is no presuit
exhaustion, even if there is exhaustion while suit is pending.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --