Court Opinion

ID: 9910449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 18:01:01.158568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:00.027523
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 15 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMORI VAUGHN ROGERS, Sr.,                      No. 22-15939

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00206-JAS

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
GALLION, Unknown; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before:      WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Federal prisoner Ramori Vaughn Rogers, Sr., appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his

action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging constitutional claims. We have

      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747

F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rogers failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable.

See id. at 1172 (setting forth exhaustion framework under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (“PLRA”)); see also Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643-44 (2016)

(describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are

unavailable); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (requiring PLRA

exhaustion for federal prisoners’ Bivens actions).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                       22-15939