Court Opinion

ID: 9380947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 18:00:53.161347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.599555
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MORIANO D. MILLARE,                             No. 21-16946

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00451-WBS-JDP

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
C. JACKSON, Lieutenant; DVI; M.
VIVERO, Captain; DVI; K. D. JOHNSON,
Associate Warden; DVI; K. KESTERSON,
Chief Deputy Warden; DVI; G. MURPHY,
Captain, Appeals Examiner; Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Moriano D. Millare appeals pro se from the district

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

      *
             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. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217,

1222 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Millare’s

retaliation claim because Millare failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative

remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632,

642-44 (2016) (explaining that an inmate must exhaust “available" administrative

remedies before bringing suit, and describing limited circumstances in which

administrative remedies are unavailable); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1121

(9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that a grievance must “provide enough information . . .

to allow prison officials to take appropriate responsive measures” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)); McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 987 (9th Cir.

2015) (“To show that a threat rendered the prison grievance system unavailable, a

prisoner must provide a basis for the court to find that he actually believed prison

officials would retaliate against him if he filed a grievance . . . [and] demonstrate

that his belief was objectively reasonable.”).

      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

                                           2                                      21-16946
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                        3                                21-16946