Court Opinion

ID: 4656024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-29 21:00:43.475121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:31.980135
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 29 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRAIG KAISER GARRETT,                           No. 20-55209

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:18-cv-10754-AB-KES

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
PAULETTE FINANDER, Prison Doctor,
official and individual capacity,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before:      McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Craig Kaiser Garrett appeals pro se from the district

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

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We

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

      *
             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).
747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (legal rulings on exhaustion); Wilhelm v.

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a

claim). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Garrett’s action because Garrett failed

to exhaust his available administrative remedies in a timely manner as required by

the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850,

1856 (2016) (proper administrative exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory);

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88-91 (2006) (prisoner must complete the

administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules,

including deadlines, as a precondition to suit); see also Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169

(where a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a district court

may dismiss for failure to state a claim).

      All pending requests are denied as moot.

      AFFIRMED.

                                             2                                  20-55209