N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KENNETH W ILLIAM S,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. D. PAR AM O; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-55554 D.C . No. 3:17-c v-02475-C AB -NLS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C athy Ann B e nc ive ngo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 12, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M A N, C HR ISTEN, a

nd R . NELSON, C i rc u it Judge s. Ke nne th W illia

m s, a C a l ifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of de fe n da

nts for fa ilure to e x ha ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g i ng First 

# FIL ED MAR 16 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).and Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt viola tions. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo thedistric t c ourt’ s orde r gran t ing sum m ary judgm e nt, Albino v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ), and we a ffirm
. 1 The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use W illia

m s fa ile d to e xha

ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s , a

nd fa i le d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof
m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r a dm inistra tive re m e die s we re e ffe c tive ly una va ila ble to him
. Se e J

one s v . Boc k, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007) (“ The re is no que stion tha t e xha ustion is mandatory

unde r the [Prison Litiga

tion R e form

Ac t ] an d tha

t une xha uste d c la im s c annot be brought in c ourt.” ); se e also Ross v . Blak e , 136 S. C t. 1850, 1859–60 (2016) (se tting forth c irc um sta

nc e s whe n a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a

re de e m e d

una va i la ble ). W illia

m s did not pursue

third le ve l re vie w of his grie va nc e e ve n though hewa s not fully

satisfie d with theprison’ s re sponse at the s e c ond le v e l. Se eBrow n v . Valoff , 422 F.3d 926, 941–43 (9th C i r. 2005) (e xpla ining a

n inm ate m

ust fully e xha u st a dm i nistra

t ive re m e die s whe n a

ny re m e dy re m a ins a

v a ila ble to him , e ve n if he ha s be e n a fforde d som e m e a sure of a dm inistra

tive re lie f). B e c a

use W illia

m s did not e xha

ust a va ila ble a d m i nistra tive

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s, we re c ite only those fa c t s ne c e ssa

ry to re solve the issue s on a p pe a l. 2re m e die s, the distric t c ourt did not err by granting sum

m a ry judgm e nt in fa

vor of de fe nda n ts. Se e J o ne s , 549 U.S. a

t 211. On a ppe a l, W illia

m s a rgue s he should ha

ve be e n gra

n te d le ave to a

m e nd his c om pla i nt be fore the distric t c ourt e nte re d sum m a ry judgm e nt. W e c onc lude am e ndm e nt would ha

ve be e n futile be c a

u se it would not c

ure W illia m s’ fa i lure to e xha ust a va ila b l e a dm inistra

tive re m e die s. Sc huc k

e r v . Roc k w ood , 846 F.2d 1202, 1203–04 (9th C ir. 1988) (pe r c uriam ) (holding a distric t c o urt ne e d not gra

n t le ave to a m e nd if it is “ a

bsolute l y c l e ar that the de fic i e nc i e s of the c om p la int c ould not be c ure d by

am e ndm e n t” (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

nd c i tation omitte d)). AFFIRM E D.

3