Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0175-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DAVID C. BURY, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shaun Darnell GARLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BORBON, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-16619.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 26, 2012.
    Shaun Darnell Garland, pro se.
    Janine K. Jeffery, Esquire, Oren Rosen-thal, Reily & Jeffery, Northridge, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

DAVID C. BURY, District Judge.

California state prisoner Shaun Darnell Garland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights violations for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider a grant of summary judgment, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Garland failed to exhaust administrative remedies regrading any grievance related to his arm being slammed in the cell door. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Garland’s motion to reconsider because he failed to demonstrate any ground for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1262.

Garland’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.