BOB BEJARANO V. KATHLEEN ALLISON, No. 16-16676 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 5 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BOB BEJARANO, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16676 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-SAB v. MEMORANDUM* KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, Warden at CSATF/Corcoran State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Bob Bejarano, 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 that defendants subjected him to a contraband watch in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction * 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because appellant admits that he did not exhaust administrative remedies, and he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires “proper exhaustion . . . , which 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)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances under which exhaustion may be effectively unavailable). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-16676

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.