NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH W. CANDLER, No. 20-16560
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00023-JAM-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PRATHER,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
ROMNEY; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Keith W. Candler appeals pro se from the district
*
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).
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir.
2010). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant
Romney because Candler failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required
by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Reyes v. Smith,
810 F.3d 654, 657 (9th Cir. 2016) (the prison’s requirements “define the
boundaries of proper exhaustion” (quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218
(2007)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 824 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that to
provide adequate notice of a problem for which the prisoner seeks redress, the
prisoner must “provide the level of detail required by the prison’s regulations”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Prather
because Candler failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Prather was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs during the twenty
minutes it took for Prather to escort Candler to a decontamination shower
following Candler’s exposure to pepper spray. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,
1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference is shown through a purposeful act or
failure to respond to the inmate’s pain or possible medical need and harm caused
by the indifference).
2 20-16560
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Crawford v. Lungren, 96 F.3d 380, 389 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-16560