Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0532-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-17176
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 23, 2017
    Gregory C. Bontemps, Pro Se
    David Charles Goodwin, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Offlce of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P, 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory C. Bontemps, a California state prisoner, 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 excessive force and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bontemps failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he exhausted his administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. See Ross v. Blake, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (exhaustion not required when administrative remedy is unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[Pjroper 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)).

Bontemps’s request for appointment of counsel, attached to the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.