Summary
applying 2019 version of CDCR's grievance process to claims subject to the 2019 version in decision issued in June 2022
Summary of this case from Garland v. FloresOpinion
21-15720
06-01-2022
CRAIG WIMBERLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KATHLEEN ALICIAN, Director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; RALPH DIAZ, Secretary of CDCR; RON DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State Prison; A. CUEVAS, Sgt at SQSP - Visting Room, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:19-cv-08316-SI
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Craig Wimberly 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 for defendant Cuevas because Wimberly failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.2(a) (2019); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (the level of detail necessary in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures is "defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself"); see also Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642-44 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are effectively unavailable).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).