DONIMIC BROOKS V. TODD THOMAS, No. 13-17485 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 3 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DONIMIC T. BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-17485 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00485-RCB v. MEMORANDUM* TODD THOMAS, Warden - Saguaro Correctional Center; BENJAMIN GRIEGO, Assistant Warden - Saguaro Correction Center, named as Ben Griego, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Donimic T. Brooks, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants retaliated against him while he was housed in Arizona. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm. The district court properly concluded that Brooks failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the alleged retaliatory removal from the religious program because Brooks did not exhaust his grievance to the final level of review and he did not demonstrate that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances under which administrative remedies are deemed unavailable or exhaustion is excused). Moreover, Brooks failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the alleged retaliatory placement in administrative segregation because he did not file a grievance regarding these allegations. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93-95. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 13-17485
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.
