NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISAAC JUDE RODRIGUEZ, No. 22-15085
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00922-DWL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2024**
Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Isaac Jude Rodriguez 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 Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182,
*
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).
1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rodriguez
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 Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638, 643-44 (2016) (explaining that an inmate
must exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before bringing suit,
and describing limited circumstances under which administrative remedies are
effectively unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining that
exhaustion “demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical
procedural rules”); Safari Club Int’l v. Haaland, 31 F. 4th 1157, 1176-77 (9th Cir.
2022) (concluding that bare assertions unsupported by evidence in the record are
insufficient to survive summary judgment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Rodriguez did not establish exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not
consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States
2 22-15085
v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
3 22-15085