TERRY ALEXANDER V. LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL, No. 15-55741 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAR 1 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TERRY ALEXANDER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55741 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:11-cv-06981-SVW-E MEMORANDUM* LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Terry Alexander appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Alexander’s claims related to (1) the failure to approve him as a wheelchair user, and (2) the denial of a wheelchair and a cell complaint with the Americans with Disabilities Act while in solitary confinement, because Alexander failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted administrative remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See 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).” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); Williams, 775 F.3d at 1191 (a prisoner who does not exhaust administrative remedies must show that “there is something particular in his case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him . . . .”). We reject as meritless Alexander’s contentions that the district court did not properly manage the discovery process and failed to take judicial notice of nonparty inmates’ assertions. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-55741

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.