MAXIMILIANO SILEONI V. BIXBY, ET AL, No. 21-35854 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAXIMILIANO SILEONI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-35854 D.C. No. 1:21-cv-00008-BLW MEMORANDUM* BIXBY, Clinician; BARNES, Clinician; IDALEE LE, Clinician; HARTT, Clinician; BOGGS, Clinician; BAUMGARTNER, Clinician; BERRETT, Dr.; ELIASON, Dr.; BERRY, AKA Barry, Dr.; CHRISTENSEN, Warden; MCKAY, Deputy Warden; PATCHETT, Dr.; HOYLE, Clinician, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Maximiliano Sileoni, an Idaho state prisoner, 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 in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his mental health needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Sileoni 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) (“[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, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-35854

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.