N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KEVIN ALM Y,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. B R ANDON DAVIS, C orre c tiona l Offic e r at LC C ; TER

R Y NELSEN, LC C C orre c tiona l Offic e r; B R

ANDT HALLING, NDOC C orre c t iona l Offic e r; R UB EN VIDAUR

R I, W SC C C orre c tiona l Offic e r; VER ONIC A M EZA, W SC C C orre c tiona l Offic e r; KEVIN FANC HER ; JAM ES KEENER , C o rre c tiona l Offic e r/Inve s tiga

t o r, De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-17581 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00129-HDM -VC F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 28, 2018 * * 

# FIL ED MAR 02 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , and TR OTT a nd SILVER

M A N, C irc uit Judge s. Ke vin Alm

y a ppe a ls the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt in his 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 a c tion a ga i nst c e rta in e m ploy e e s of the Ne va da De p artm e nt of C orre c tions. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

in pa rt, va c ate in pa

rt
and re m and. 1. W e do not re a c h Alm

y ’ s c onte ntion tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by dism issing Alm

y ’ s first a c t ion, C ivil No. 3:11-cv-00023-EC R -VPC , without
a ffording him a

n opportunity

to file an am e nde d c om

pla int, c a using him to inc ur two filing fe e s. Alm

y did not a ppe a l the dism issa l of the first a c tion. W e the re fore
are w ithout a

ppe lla te jurisdic tion to a ddre ss it. Se eSmith v . Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) (“ R

ule 3’ s dic t ate s a

re jurisdic tiona l in na

ture , a nd the ir satisfa c tion is a pre re quisiteto a

ppe lla t e re vie w.” ). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by de c lining to a ppoint
c ounse l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(1). Although Alm y wa s pre se nte d with diffic u ltie s in pursuing his c a se , he did not e sta blish “ e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s”
warranting a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l. Palme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009). Alm

y , m ore o ve r, did not re ne w his re que s t during thelatte r sta g e s of the litiga tion.

23. Although Alm y c onte nds he did not re c e i ve the notic e re quire d by Rand
v . Row land, 154 F.3d 952, 955-56 (9th C i r. 1998) (e n ba nc ), and K

linge lev . Eik e nbe r ry , 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th C ir. 1988), thedistric t c ourt found othe rwise , a

n d tha t finding is not c l e arly

e rrone o us. The re c ord shows thedistric t c ourt issue d the notic e , a

nd Alm y c onc e de s he re c e i ve d

the de fe nda

nts’ m otion to dism iss, file d the sa

m e da y a s the K linge le notic e . 4. Alm y c onte nds he wa s de nie d a fa i r tria l be c a

u se (1) he wa s se ate d m ore tha n 20 fe e t from

the jury ; (2) uniform e d c orre c tiona l offic e rs stood be hind him during thetria l; (3) he ha d to we ar wa i st a nd le g re stra ints during tria l; (4) he wa s prohibite d from

a pproa c hing thejury

to show them his sc ars; (5) the de fe nda nts
and the c ourt use d the w o rd “ thre ate ne d” to re fe r to his intent to file a dm inistra tive grie va nc e s or initia

te le ga l a c t ion a ga inst c orre c tions e m ploy e e s; a nd (6) the c ourt
a llowe d the de fe nse to pre se nt e vide n c e of his nine -y e a r-old c onvic t ion for
atte m pte d m urde r to im

pe a c h his c re dibility . B e c a use Alm y ha s not file d c opie s of the t ria l tra nsc ript, we c annot m e aningfully a ddre ss the s e c la im s. Se eSy nc om C apital C orp. v . W a de , 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th C ir. 1991) (holding tha t “ fa ilure to provide re le va

nt portions of a

tra nsc ript m ay

re q uire dism issa l of the a

ppe a l” ). Alm y a lso c onte nds thedistric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion by

de ny ing his motion for a m istria l with re spe c t to a loc a l ra dio progra

m tha t he be lie ve s m a

y have 3influe n c e d jurors. Again, be c a use Alm y ha s not pre se nte d a

tra nsc ript of the proc e e dings, weare una

ble to a ddre ss this c l a im

of e rror. Alm

y ’ s c ha lle nge to the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of his m o tion for tria l tra nsc ripts a t gove rnm e nt e xpe nse is
wa ive d be c a

use he ra ise s it for thefirst tim e in his reply brie f. Se eUnite d State

s v . Bohn , 956 F.2d 208, 209 (9th C ir. 1992). 5. W e de c line to re a c h Alm y ’ s c onte ntion tha

t the de fe n da

nts inte rfe re d with his a bility to prose c ute this a c tion by prison tra

n s fe rs; de ny ing him photoc opy ing privile ge s; a nd limiting his ac c e ss to e v ide nc e , witne sse s a nd
e xhibits. Although prisone rs ha ve “ a right unde r the First a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts to litiga

te c la im s c ha lle nging the ir se nte nc e s or the c onditions of the i r c o nfine m e nt to c onc l usion without ac tiv einte rfe re n c eby prison offic ia ls,” Silv a v . Di Vittorio , 658 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th C i r. 2011), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds as state

d in Ric h e y v . Dahne , 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th C ir. 2015), Alm y did not pre se nt this c la im in the distric t c ourt. 6. Although Alm

y c ha lle nge s a

num be r of the distric t c ourt’ s e vide ntia ry rulings, heha s not e sta

blishe d a n a buse of disc re t ion. Se eSimula, Inc . v . Autoliv , Inc
. , 175 F.3d 716, 726 (1999) (re v ie wing disc ove ry

rulings for a

n a buse of disc re tion).

47. Alm y ’ s c ha lle nge to the jury ’ s de c ision not to a ward punitive dam a ge s is without me rit. Se eRunge v . Le e , 441 F.2d 579, 584 (9th C ir. 1971) (“ The de te rm i nation tha

t a ppe l la nts’ a c ts we re wa

nton a nd m a lic ious wa s within the
e xc lusiveprovinc e of the jury .” ). 8. W e va c ate the dism i ssa l of C ount VII for fa ilure to e x ha ust
a dm inistra

tive re m e die s. Unde r the Prison Litiga tion R e form

Ac t (PLR

A), “ [n] o a c tion sha ll be brought with re spe c t to prison c onditions unde r se c tion 1983 of this title , or a ny othe r Fe de ra l la

w, by a prisone r c onfine d

in a ny ja il, prison, or othe

r c orre c tiona l fa c ility

until suc h a dm inistra

t ive re m e die s a s are ava ila ble are e xha uste d.” 42 U.S.C . § 1997e (a ). The PLR A, howe ve r, “ doe s not re quire
e xha ustion when c irc um sta

nc e s re nde r a dm inistra

tive re m e die s ‘ e ffe c tive ly
una va ila ble .’ ” Andre

s v . Marshall , 867 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th C ir. 2017) (quoting N une z v . Dunc a n , 591 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th C ir. 2010)); se eRoss v . Blak e , 136 S. C t. 1850, 1859-60 (2016). Alm y a sse rte d unde r pe n a lty

of pe rjury

tha t he wa s una ble to file an

a d m inistra t ive grie va

nc e re ga rding C ount VII be c a

use his re que sts for a s uffic i e nt num

be r of grie va

nc e form s we re de nie d. C R 94 a t 5-7, 21; C R

164
at 2-3, 16. Thede fe nda

nts pre se nte d no e vide nc e to the c ontra ry . C R 27 a t 7; C R 101 a t 1-2; C R 175 a t 3. It is there fore undispute d tha t Alm y wa s not provide d suffic i e nt grie va

nc e form s to filean a dm i nistra tive grie v anc e with re spe c t to C ount
5VII, re nde ring a d m inistra tive re m e die s e ffe c tive ly

una va ila ble
. S e e N une z , 591 F.3d at 1226. Alm

y wa s not re quire d to e xha ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s with
re spe c t to this c la im
. Se eAndre s , 867 F.3d a

t 1078. 9. W e a lso va c ate the dism issa l of C o unt XIV. In this c la i m , Alm y a lle ge s he wa s de nie d due proc e ss in c o nne c tion with a disc iplina

ry proc e e ding a ga inst him , re sulting in his be ing pla c e d in a dm inistra tive se gre gation for 43 da y s. Although Alm

y file d a grie v anc e c ha lle nging this disc ipline(grie va nc e #3379), prison offic ia ls re

je c te d it sole ly be c a use Alm y fa i le d to a

tta c h a c opy of the unde rly ing disc iplina

ry c ha rge s. Alm

y c onc e de s he did not a

tta c h the unde rly ing
c ha rge s, but it is undisputed tha t he wa s una

ble to do so sole ly

be c a use he la c ke d the fina nc ia l a bility to photoc opy

the m . Prison offic ia ls, m ore o ve r, we re a lre a dy in posse s sion of thec ha

rge s . Unde r the se c irc um sta n c e s , Alm

y ’ s a dm i nistra

tive
re m e die s we re e ffe c tive ly una va ila ble
. Se eSapp v
. K

imbre ll , 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ If prison offic ia ls sc re e n out a n inm at e ’ s a

ppe a l s for im

prope r re a s ons, theinm ate c annot pursuethe ne c e ssa ry se que nc e of a

ppe a ls, a nd
a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a

re the re fore pla inly

una va ila b le .” ); c f. 28 U.S.C
. § 1915(b)(4) (“ In no e ve nt sha ll a prisone r be prohibite d from bringing a

c ivil
a c tion or a

ppe a ling a

c i vil or c rim ina l judgm e nt for the re a son tha t the prisone r ha s no a sse ts a

nd no m e ans by

whic h to pa

y the initia l pa

rtia l filing fe e .” ).
610. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C ount XV for fa ilure to e xha ust
a dm inistra

tive re m e die s. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 1997e (a ). Alm y c ould ha

ve pe rfe c te d his a dm inistra

tive grie va

nc e s but fa i le d to do so. W e va c ate the dism issa l of C o unts VII a nd XIV. W e a ffirm

in a ll othe r re spe c ts. The c a se is re m ande d for proc e e dings c o nsiste nt with this disposition. AFFIRM E D IN PART ; VACAT E D IN PART ; RE M ANDE D.

7