NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MACARIO IGNACIO MARRUFFO,

Plaint iff

- Appellant,

v. CHRISTOPHER STREET, Sgt, young fiction ex parte individual and official capacity, Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 15865 D.C. No. 2:15

- cv - 00261

- SPL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017 ** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE , Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Macario Ignacio Marruffo appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment and dismissal order in his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not preced ent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 15865

(“RICO” ). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Williams v. Paramo , 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. McKinley , 360 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court’s dismissal of all claims other than the excessive force claim ag ainst Street was proper because Marruffo failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual a llegations sufficient to state a plaus ible claim for relief); Christopher v. Harbury , 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) ( elements of access

- to

- courts claim); Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co ., 431 F.3d 353, 361 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a civi l RICO claim); Rhodes v. Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567

- 68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of retaliation claim in prison context );
Serrano v. Francis , 345 F.3d 1071, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of equal protection claim); Gillespie v. Civiletti , 629 F.2d 637, 6 41 (9th Cir. 1980) (elements of conspiracy claim).3 17

- 15865

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Marruffo’s
excessive force claim because Marruffo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his administrative remedies, or whether there was “something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively u navailable to him.”
Albino v. Baca , 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); see also Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (requiring proper exhaustion, which “ means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted) ). We do not consider arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or raised for the first time on appeal. See Padge tt v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Marruffo’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief, is
denied. Marruffo’s “Motion for Order to Reinstate Order to Amend Upon Newly Discovered Information” (Docket Entry No. 16) and “M otion to Notify with Order4 17

- 15865

for Extension” (Docket Entry No. 36 ) are denied.
AFFIRMED.