NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL ARELLANO, No. 19-56264
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02300-AJB-LL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
R. OLSON, Appeal Coordinator (CCII);
COMMISSIONER OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
B. SELF, CCII (Appeal Coordinator); et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
California state prisoner Raul Arellano 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 retaliation. We have jurisdiction 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 Arellano
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) (proper exhaustion requires “using
all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency
addresses the issues on the merits)” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2015) (to show that a
threat rendered the prison grievance system unavailable, a prisoner must show that
he subjectively believed prison officials would retaliate against him and that his
belief was objectively reasonable).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the late filed
signature page for Arellano’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. See Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002)
(setting forth standard of review and grounds for excluding evidence).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-56264