WILLIE DAVIS V. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF, No. 18-35232 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 20 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIE C. DAVIS, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-35232 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05146-RBL v. MEMORANDUM* WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, and PETER GREEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2019** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Washington state prisoner Willie C. Davis appeals pro se from the district * 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). court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. 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 Davis did not exhaust his 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) (proper exhaustion requires “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)); see also Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016) (describing limited circumstances under which administrative remedies are effectively unavailable). We reject as meritless Davis’s contention that the mishandling of his medical records affected his ability to exhaust available administrative remedies. AFFIRMED. 2

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.