FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENGHIZ K. STEWART, No. 10-16644
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00674-MHM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNKNOWN BEZY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Mary H. MURGUIA, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jenghiz K. Stewart appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and legal
history of this case, we need not recount it here.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
I
The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking untimely filed
pleadings. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir.
1992) (describing standard). Stewart filed his response in opposition to
Defendants’ summary judgment motion 26-days past the court’s final filing
deadline. Prior to filing his response, Stewart had requested multiple extensions.
The district court, noting the challenges that Stewart faced as an incarcerated pro se
litigant, granted many of these extension requests. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d
1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). But a district court need not extend deadlines
indefinitely. Stewart failed to demonstrate any excusable neglect for his untimely
filing. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380,
395 (1993).
Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
granting the Motion to Strike the untimely response.
II
The district court properly granted summary judgment. The Prison Litigation
Reform Act, which governs this appeal, provides that “[n]o action shall be brought
with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal
law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until
-2-
such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006).
Stewart did not exhaust the Arizona Department of Corrections mandatory
four-step inmate grievance procedure, and nothing in the record supports the
conclusion that administrative remedies were “effectively unavailable” to Stewart.
Cf. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1223-26 (9th Cir. 2010); Marella v. Terhune,
568 F.3d 1024, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2009). Even if Stewart did not receive a
response to his intermediate administrative appeal, the grievance procedures still
permitted him to continue on to the fourth and final step of his appeal. After
proceeding to step three of his grievance appeal, Stewart waited more than sixteen
months to file this suit. Given the unexcused failure to exhaust mandatory
remedies, the district court properly granted summary judgment.
AFFIRMED. All pending motions denied as moot.
-3-