NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
BOB BEJARANO, No. 16-16676
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00589-LJO-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, Warden
at CSATF/Corcoran State Prison; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bob Bejarano, a California state prisoner, 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 defendants subjected him to a contraband watch
in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
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 appellant
admits that he did not exhaust administrative remedies, and he failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were
effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (the
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires “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 internal quotation
marks omitted)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010)
(describing limited circumstances under which exhaustion may be effectively
unavailable).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-16676