NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM SHROPSHIRE, No. 16-16729
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00164-RCJ-WGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
V. FAJOTA, Chief of Banking / Inmate
Accounts,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner William Shropshire 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 that defendant Fajota illegally removed funds from
his inmate trust account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
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).
review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shropshire
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly
exhausted administrative remedies or whether administrative remedies were
effectively unavailable. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016)
(setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are unavailable);
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)).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-16729