KEVIN BRAZIER V. JEFFREY BEARD, No. 17-15898 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN DEON BRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15898 D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00787-LJO-MJS v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. BEARD; 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 November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Kevin Deon Brazier appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from defendants’ failure to grant him a kosher diet. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. * 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). Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Brazier 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 Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016) (describing limited circumstances under which administrative remedies are deemed 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, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)). 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 17-15898

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.