FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICKIE L. HILL, No. 15-15923
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00717-LRH-
WGC
v.
CHRISTOPHER DAVIS; PAUL MEMORANDUM*
MALAY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Rickie L. Hill appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims of
deliberate indifference to safety and failure to protect. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168,
1171 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Willis
because Hill failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he
properly exhausted his administrative remedies, or whether administrative
remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,
84, 90 (2006) (requiring proper exhaustion, which means “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 quotation marks omitted)); Sapp v. Kimbrell,
623 F.3d 813, 822-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances
under which administrative remedies might be effectively unavailable or otherwise
excused).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting defendants to file
a second motion for summary judgment. See Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d
908, 911-12 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that
“allowing a party to file a second motion for summary judgment is logical, and it
fosters the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of suits” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
2 15-15923
We cannot review Hill’s contentions challenging his jury trial because Hill
has failed to provide the relevant trial transcripts required to review the alleged
errors. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d
167, 169-70 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing appeal by pro se appellant for failure to
provide relevant trial transcripts).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Hill’s pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15923