SHAUNTAE TAYLOR V. SUCHIL, No. 12-57120 (9th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 28 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SHAUNTAE TAYLOR, No. 12-57120 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09762-RGK v. MEMORANDUM* SUCHIL, in individual and official capacity as Sheriff Deputy; RAMIREZ, in individual capacity and official capacity as Sheriff Deputy, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÃ N, O SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Shauntae Taylor appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). used excessive force against him. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and for clear error the district court s underlying factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Taylor s action without prejudice because Taylor did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that proper exhaustion is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). Moreover, Taylor failed to show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are effectively unavailable ). AFFIRMED. 2 12-57120

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.