Court Opinion

ID: 9965536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 18:00:50.812459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:10.731470
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 2 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAUL ARELLANO,                                  No. 21-56249

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02412-CAB-MSB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
R. BLAHNIK,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                 Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Raul Arellano appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to courts. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the district court’s factual

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
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).
findings relevant to its exhaustion determination. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162,

1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.

      The district court did not commit clear error by finding, following an

evidentiary hearing, that Arellano failed to exhaust administrative remedies on his

access-to-courts claim, and that Arellano’s administrative remedies were not

effectively unavailable. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638, 642-44 (2016)

(explaining that an inmate must exhaust “such administrative remedies as are

available” before bringing suit, and describing limited circumstances under which

administrative remedies are effectively unavailable); Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S.

234, 242 (2001) (an appellate court may not reverse for clear error absent a

“definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” (internal

quotation marks omitted)).

      We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Blahnik’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 30) is denied as

unnecessary.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                     21-56249