N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSEPH KEITH R

ENANDER , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. TODD THOM AS; B ENJAM IN GR IEGO; JODI B R ADLEY; D. SIGM O N; NER O, First na m e unknown, na

m e d a s Sgt. Ne ro; R OM ER O, First na

m e unknown, na

m e d a s Sgt. R o m e ro; M . OLSEN; RIELAND, First na m e unknown; ALIMAN, First nam e unknown; HILL, First na m e unknown; C ORE C IVIC OF AM ER IC A,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-15169 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-04760-SR B 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 Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 28, 2023 * * B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, KLEINFELD, a nd SILVER

M AN, C i rc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED SEP 29 2023 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).Jose ph R e na nde r a ppe a ls from

the fina l dism issa l of his prisoner c ivil rights a c tion. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v i e w the sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd dismissa l of c la im s in thesc re e ning orde r de novo. J ohnson v . Ry an , 55 F.4th 1167, 1179 (9th C ir. 2022). W e a ffirm . Pla intiff fa ile d to e xha

ust his c la im

tha t De fe nda nt Ale m an viola

t e d his rights by re a d ing his le ga l m a il; thus sum m ary judgm e nt wa s prope r. At a ba re m inim um , pla intiff’ s grie va

nc e ha d to be spe c ific e nough to put the prison on notic e of the nature of the a lle ge d wrong to a llow theprison to c orre c t the proble m . Griffin v . Arpaio , 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th C ir. 2009). The c o m ple te d grie va

nc e c ite d by pla intiff did not put the

prison on notic e of the c la i m tha t De fe nda nt Ale m an or a

ny othe r offic e r re a d le ga l m a il in plaintiff’ s pre se nc e during m a il de live ry . Se e id . at 1121 (holding tha t a grie va nc e re que sting a

la dde r to a c c e ss the top bunk did not e

xha ust a c la im tha t prison sta ff disre ga

rde d a n orde r a ssigning the p risone r to a

lowe r bunk). De fe nda

nts c am e forward with e vide n c e to e sta blish that pla intiff fa ile d

to e xha ust his a va ila ble re m e die s for his c la im and tha t he wa s a ble to file and c om

ple t e grie va

nc e s, inc l uding thegrie v anc e re late d to a nothe r c la im in the c a se . Pla intiff did not offer suffic ie nt e vide nc e to support his argum e nts tha

t the grie va

nc e sy ste m wa s e ffe c tive ly una va ila ble to him

or tha t offic ia ls pre ve nte d him

from filing his griev an c e for this c la im . Se e Albino v .

2Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1171-73 (9th C ir. 2014) (se tting forth the sta nda rd and pa rtie s ’ burde ns) (e n ba

nc ). The distric t c ourt did not err by dism issing c la i m s, without pre judic e , in the sc re e ning orde r. The distric t c o urt prope rly re quire d tha

t pla intiff link his c la im s to nam e d de fe nda

nts a nd a lle ge fa c ts to support a ll of the e le m e nts of his c la im s. Se e Pratt v . Row land, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th C ir. 1995) (“ The pla intiff be ars the burde n of ple a ding a

nd proving the

a bse nc e of le gitim ate c orre c tiona l goa ls for the c onduc t of whic h

he c om pla ints.” ); Arnold v . Int’l Bus. Mac hs. , 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th C ir. 1981) (se c tion 1983 c a usation “ c a

n be e sta blishe d by showing tha

t the d e fe nda

nt pe rsona l ly

pa rtic i pate d in a

de priva tion of thepla i ntiff’ s rights, or c a use d suc h a

de priva tion to oc c ur” ). The distric t c ourt wa s not re quire d to a c c e pt c onc lusory

a lle gations tha

t la c ke d supporting fa c ts. Spre w e l l v . Golde n State W arriors , 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th C ir. 2001). W e de c l ine to c onside r pla intiff’ s c h a lle n g e s to them a gistra te judge ’ s nondispositive

orde rs, inc luding theorde rs de ny ing le a v e to a m e nd for fa ilure to c om ply with proc e dura l rule s a nd striking pla

intiff’ s untim e ly

m o tion for pa

rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt. A pa

rty who fa ils to file

tim e ly obje c tions to a m a gistra

te judge ’ s nondispositive orde r unde r Fe d e ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 72(a ) forfe its a ppe lla te re vie wof the orde r. Simpson v . Le a r Astronic s C o rp. , 77 F.3d 1170, 31174 (9th C ir. 1996). Pla i ntiff forfe ite d his right to cha lle nge the m a gistra te judge ’ s orde rs on a

p pe a l by not obje c ting to those orde rs in distric t c ourt. To the e xte nt tha

t pla intiff a

rgue s tha t the distric t judge and m a gistra te judge we re bia se d, his a

rgum e nt la c ks m e rit. B ia s a rise s “ from

an e xtra judic ia l sourc e not from

c onduc t or rulings ma de during thec ourse of the proc e e ding.” Leslie v Grupo IC

A , 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th C ir. 1999) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d). The judge s did not e xhibit bia s by ide ntify ing pla intiff’ s c onvic tions, whic h we re pa

rt of the re c ord a

nd re le va nt to thea lle ge d c la im s. M ore ove r, the fa c t tha t the judge s rule d a ga i nst pla intiff or tha t pla intiff be lie ve d tha

t the judge s m isa p plie d the la

w doe s not e sta

blish bia s. Id. AFFIRM E D.

4