Opinion
22-55745
03-07-2024
TIMOTHY DEANORE WILKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS; JONES, Correctional Sergeant, individual; LUND, Correctional Officer, individual; STEVE R. BRENNEMAN, Correctional Officer, individual; ANGELO DOLIDA, Correctional Officer, individual; A. MORENO, Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; D. MANER, Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; JACOBS, Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity; LESLIE KINGSLEY, Correctional Officer, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted March 7, 2024 [**] San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. 2:21-cv-03383-VAP-E Virginia A. Phillips, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges
MEMORANDUM [*]
Timothy Wilkins appeals pro se from the district court's grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action alleging violations of the First and Eighth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we affirm.
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc).
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Wilkins's civil rights claims because Wilkins failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. See Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2016). Even considering Wilkins's rejected communications to the district court and later cases alleging retaliation, the record lacks evidence that Wilkins actually feared retaliation for using the administrative grievance process, let alone that any fear of retaliation was objectively reasonable.
This Court may take judicial notice of legal proceedings. See United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). Wilkins's request for judicial notice of Wilkins v. Holcolm, No. 22-cv-3608-SVW (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022) and Wilkins v. Samuels, No. 22-cv-2434-SVW (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2022), and his rejected filings in the district court, is granted. Appellees' motion for judicial notice of the dockets and dismissal orders in Holcolm and Samuels is also granted.
See McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 987-88 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).