Court Opinion

ID: 9365586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 17:00:43.137988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.433552
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENZELL METCALF,                                No. 21-16594

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00809-DAD-
                                                BAM
 v.

C. HUCKLEBERRY, Sgt.; M. BURKFIT,               MEMORANDUM*
Correctional Officer; M. FRANCO,
Correctional Officer; M. MARQUEZ,
Correctional Officer,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Denzell Metcalf appeals pro se from the district

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

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging failure to protect. We have jurisdiction under 28

      *
             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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir.

2014). We affirm.

         The district court properly granted summary judgment because Metcalf

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 Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638, 643-44 (2016) (explaining that an inmate

must exhaust such administrative remedies as are available before filing an action,

and describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are

unavailable); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The obligation

to exhaust ‘available’ remedies persists as long as some remedy remains

‘available.’” (emphasis in original)).

         We are unpersuaded by Metcalf’s contention that the district court erred in

considering Metcalf’s objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations despite recognizing that Metcalf’s objections were missing

pages.

         AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                   21-16594