N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TIM OTHY PAUL OLM OS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C HARLES L. R

YAN; ALLEN OR

TEGA, C o II/SSU Offic e r #2083, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15406 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-02564-GM S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Tim othy Pa ul Olm os a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c onstitutiona l viola tions in c onne c tion with his c onditions of c onfine m e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e 

# FIL ED DEC 02 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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).re vie w de novo sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd dismissa l unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6). Doev . Abbott Labs , 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t Olm os fa ile d to e xha

ust his c la im s re ga rding c ha rge s for c e rta in se rvic e s a nd ite m s, inte re st pa

ym e nts for his prisone

r ba nk a c c o unt, a

nd prison ma il polic ie s, a nd fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t a dm inistra

tive re m e die s we re e ffe c tive ly una va ila ble to him . S

e e Sapp v . K

imbre ll , 623 F.3d 813, 821-24 (9th C ir. 2010) (disc ussing proper e x ha u s tion a nd de sc ribing lim

ite d c irc um s ta nc e s whe re im

prope r sc re e ning re nde rs a dm inistra tive re m e die s una va ila ble ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Olmos’ c la im s re ga rding ove rc rowding, insuffic ie nt food, c ha rge s for c e rta in se rvic e s a nd ite m s, and c om pe n sat ion a s a

n e duc ationa l a ide on the ba sis of qua lifie d im m unity be c a use it would not ha

ve be e n c le ar to e ve ry re a sona

ble prison offic ia l tha

t de fe nda nt’ s a c tions we re unla

wful. Se e Ashc roft v . al-K idd, 131 S. C t. 2074, 2080, 2083 (2011) (e xpla i ning two-pa rt te st for qua lifie d im

m unity). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Olm os’ ta

kings c la i m

re ga rding the re turn of inm ate -purc h a se d c lothing a s unripe be c a use it is not ye t fit for judic ia l re vie w a n d the ha rdship to Olm

os ha s not y e t oc c urre d. Se eAlask a Right to Life Politic al Ac tion C

omm. v . Fe ldman , 504 F.3d 840, 849 (9th C ir. 2007) (e le m e nts of 1 4 - 1 5 4 0 6 2prude ntia l ripe n e ss).

The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Olmos’ re t a lia tion c la im be c a use Olm os fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m at e ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the a dve rse a c tion did not re a s ona bly a dva nc e a le gitim ate c orre c tiona l goa l. Se e Rhode s v . Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th C ir. 2005) (se tting forth e le m e nts of inm ate re ta lia

tion c la im ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Olmos’ c la im re ga rding c om

p e nsation a s a

kitc he n worke r be c a

use Olm os fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine d isputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the position wa s c la s sifie d to be pa id at a highe r wa g e . Se e Ariz . R e v. Stat . § 31-254(A) (gra nting thedire c tor disc re tion to de te rm ine prison worke r’ s c om pe nsat ion). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Olm os’ m otion to am e nd his c om

pla int be c a

u s e Olm os ha d

not y e t se rve d de fe nda

nts a nd he wa s give n subse que nt opportunitie s to a m e nd his c o m

pla int. Se eHinton v . Pac . Ente rs. , 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth sta n da rd of re vie w a

nd re quire m e nts for le ave to a m e nd). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Olm os’ m otions for disc ove ry be c a use Olm os fa ile d

to show wha

t m ate ria l fa c ts would ha

ve be e n disc ove re d tha

t would ha ve pre c lude d sum

m a ry judgm e nt. S

e eK l inge le v . 1 4 - 1 5 4 0 6 3Eik

e nbe r ry , 849 F.2d 409, 412 (9th C ir. 1988) (“ The burde n is on thenonm oving pa rty . . . to show wha

t m ate ria l fa c ts would bedisc ove re d tha t would pre c lude sum m ary judgm e nt.” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Olm os’ m otion to a ppoint c ounse l be c a

u s e Olm os did not dem o nstra te e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s. Se eTe rre ll v . Bre w e r , 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th C ir. 1991) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re v ie w a

nd re quire m e nts for a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l). W e do not c onside r issue s or a rgum e nts not spe c i fic a lly and distinc t ly

ra ise d and a rgue d in theope ning brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). Appe lle e s’ m otion to strike Olm os’ a ppe ndix, file d on June20, 2014, is de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 4 0 6 4