Case Name: Enrique ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLE, Avenal State Prison Correction Officer, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-26
Citations: 675 F. App'x 796
Docket Number: No. 15-17555
Parties: Enrique ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLE, Avenal State Prison Correction Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 796–796

Head Matter:
Enrique ORTIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLE, Avenal State Prison Correction Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-17555
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 26, 2017
Enrique Ortiz, Pro Se
Justin Walker, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Enrique Ortiz, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ortiz failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his administrative remedies. See Ross v. Blake, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1856, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act is mandatory).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.