JEFFREY MOORE V. COCKS, No. 19-15569 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 11 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEFFREY AARON MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-15569 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-08244-DLR-JZB MEMORANDUM* COCKS, LT - Administration at MCADF; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and JIM McCABE, DON BISCHOFF; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 3, 2020** Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Former Arizona state pretrial detainee Jeffrey Aaron Moore appeals pro se * 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). from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force, sexual assault, and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Moore failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and 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 PLRA requires “proper exhaustion,” which means “using all steps the agency holds out, and doing so properly” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1860 (2016) (describing the limited circumstances under which administrative remedies may be effectively unavailable). AFFIRMED. 2 19-15569

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.