Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0915-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cesar ENCISO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALCATAR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15956
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 04, 2016
    Cesar Enciso, Chowchilla, CA, Pro se.
    Arthur B. Mark, III, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Cesar Enciso 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 deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Enciso failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because the grievance he filed at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility did not sufficiently alert prison officials to the nature of the -wrong underlying his deliberate indifference claims against defendants at North Kern State Prison and Corcoran State Prison. See Reyes v. Smith, 810 F.3d 654, 659 (9th Cir. 2016) (a grievance only suffices “if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Enciso’s contentions regarding the timeliness of his grievance and tolling are without merit.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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