MILORAD OLIC V. R. CHACON, No. 19-15451 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MILORAD TEODOR OLIC, AKA Milorad Olic, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-15451 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02128-KJM-EFB Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. R. CHACON; M. RAINEY, Defendants-Appellees, and D. CHURCH, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Milorad Teodor Olic 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 excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Olic 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 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)” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.3(a) (“An inmate or parolee shall obtain and attach all supporting documents . . . prior to submitting the appeal to the appeals coordinator.”); McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 584 F.3d 1129, 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Summary judgment requires facts, not simply unsupported denials or rank speculation.”). AFFIRMED. 2 19-15451

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.