IVAN MATTHEWS V. R. LILES, No. 19-15138 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JAN 14 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IVAN LEE MATTHEWS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-15138 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00083-AWIBAM v. MEMORANDUM* R. LILES, Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Ivan Lee Matthews appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th * 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). Cir. 2015), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Matthews’s retaliation claim because Matthews failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856, 1858-60 (2016) (explaining that an inmate must exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before bringing suit, and describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are unavailable (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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 and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as without merit Matthews’s contention that the district court erred by considering the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies for the first time on summary judgment. AFFIRMED. 2 19-15138

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.