Frederick E. Leonard v. G. Casillas; A. Shahid; P. Foster; Special Appearance

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK E. LEONARD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
G. CASILLAS; A. SHAHID; P. FOSTER;
SPECIAL APPEARANCE,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16225
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02004-WBS-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Frederick E. Leonard 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 due process and retaliation claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling
* 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
JUN 30 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16225
on cross motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085,
1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Casillas
because Leonard failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his retaliation
claim against Casillas 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) (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)); Albino v.
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (once the defendant has
carried the burden to prove there was an available administrative remedy, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence showing that administrative
remedies were effectively unavailable to him).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Shahid
and Foster because, in light of the fact that Leonard’s good time credits were
restored, Leonard failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his
due process rights were violated or whether Shahid or Foster retaliated against him.
See Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir. 2016)
(to establish retaliation, a plaintiff must show a nexus between the defendant’s
actions and an intent to chill speech); Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d 762, 764 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16225
2015) (“The district court properly granted summary judgment on Frank’s due
process claim because, as our sister circuits have recognized, any procedural error
was corrected through the administrative appeal process, and Frank ultimately did
not lose any good time credits.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --