NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERRY KENT DILLINGHAM, a.k.a. Jerry No. 18-16300
Dillingham,
D.C. No. 4:16-cv-03267-YGR
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
EVA SCRUGGS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jerry Kent Dillingham, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal
and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because Dillingham failed to exhaust his remedies and failed raise a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable
to him. See id. at 1172 (explaining that once the defendant has carried the burden
to prove that there was an available administrative remedy, the burden shifts to the
prisoner to come forward with evidence showing that there is something in his
particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative
remedies effectively unavailable to him).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dillingham’s
motions for appointment of counsel because Dillingham was able to articulate his
claims and was unlikely to succeed on the merits. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d
965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and discussing factors to
consider in ruling on a motion to appoint counsel).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dillingham’s
motion for reconsideration because Dillingham set forth no valid grounds for
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for
reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60).
Dillingham’s unopposed motion to supplement the record is granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-16300