DANNY FABRICANT V. A. MIRANDA, No. 21-16345 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 26 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANNY FABRICANT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-16345 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00029-JCH v. MEMORANDUM* A. MIRANDA, individually and in his/her official capacity as Unit C-2 Case Manager; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John C. Hinderaker, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 17, 2022** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of * 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). Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging an Eighth Amendment claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Quintero Perez v. United States, 8 F.4th 1095, 1104 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Fabricant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (setting forth exhaustion framework under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)); see also Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643-44 (2016) (describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are unavailable); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (requiring PLRA exhaustion for federal prisoners’ Bivens actions). The district court did not abuse its discretion by partially granting Fabricant’s requests for extensions of time to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 954-55, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and explaining a district court has broad discretion to control its docket). We do not consider Fabricant’s contention that the district court erred by failing to provide him a copy of his own filing in light of his acknowledged receipt of the document as part of this appeal. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fabricant’s motion 2 21-16345 for discovery because Fabricant did not show that the sought-after facts were essential to his opposition. See Garrett v. City & County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth standard of review). AFFIRMED. 3 21-16345
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.
