GREGORY BONTEMPS V. NEVES, No. 15-17176 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GREGORY C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-17176 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02185-TLN-AC MEMORANDUM* NEVES; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Gregory C. Bontemps, a California state prisoner, 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 excessive force and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, * 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). 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bontemps failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he exhausted his administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016) (exhaustion not required when administrative remedy is unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Bontemps’s request for appointment of counsel, attached to the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-17176

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.