N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B ILLY DRIVER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M AC HUC A, Se rge a

nt, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16084 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05793-SI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Susa n Illston, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r B illy

Drive r a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging va rious c onstitutiona

l c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Albino 

# FIL ED FEB 27 2015 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 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). Drive r’ s re que sts for ora l argum e nt, se t forth in his brie fs, a re de nie d.v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba n c ) (le g a l rulings on e xha ustion of a dm inistra

tive re m e die s). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Drive r’ s First Am e ndm e nt re t a lia tion c la im for fa ilure to e xha

ust his a dm i nistra

tive re m e d ie s be c a

use Drive r did not ra ise in his grieva

n c e the c la im that he now ra ise s a ga inst M a c huc a in this a c tion. Se eMorton v . Hall , 599 F.3d 942, 946 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [A] grie va nc e suffic e s if it a le rts the prison to the

nature of the wrong for whic h re dre ss is sought.” (c ita tion and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks omitte d)). B e c a use Drive r m ake s no a

rgum e nt c onc e rning thedistric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of his othe r c l a im s on a lle ge dly “ e rrone ous proc e dura l grounds,”we de e m the issue s a ba ndone d. Se e Pie rc ev . Multnomah C ounty , Or. , 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n.3 (9th C ir. 1996) (issue s not supporte d by argum e nt in pro sebrie f are de e m e d a ba ndone d); G re e nw ood v . FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th C ir. 1994) (“ W e re vie w only issue s whic h a

re argue d spe c ific a lly

and distinc t ly

in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f. W e will not ma

n ufa c ture argum e nts for a

n a ppe lla nt, a nd a ba re a s se rtion doe s not pre s e rve a

c la im , pa rtic ula rly whe n , a s he re , a

host of other issue s are pre se nte d for re vie w.” (c ita

tion omitte d)). W e re je c t Drive r’ s c o nte ntions re ga rding a ppointm e nt of c ounse l a

nd a lle ge d m isc o nduc t by the distric t judge . 1 3 - 1 6 0 8 4 2Drive r’ s re que sts for a p pointm e nt of c ounse l on a ppe a l a nd a se ttle m e nt c onfe re nc e , se t forth in his brie fs, a re de nie d. Drive r’ s m otion to stop filing fe e ove rc ha rge s, file d on Oc tobe r 28, 2013, is de nie d without pre

judic e so tha

t Drive r m ay

first ra ise this issue

in thedistric t c ourt whe re the a lle g e d wrongful de duc tions oc c urre d . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 6 0 8 4 3