gno.law

Raul Arellano, Jr. v. R. Olson

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 19-56264 · 2021-02-23 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Anthony J. Battaglia (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
civil
Appeal from
Arellano v. Self (2019-09-23); Arellano v. Self (2019-12-11) — the district court's orders on this docket in the record

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAUL ARELLANO, No. 19-56264 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-02300-AJB-LL v. MEMORANDUM* R. OLSON, Appeal Coordinator (CCII); COMMISSIONER OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellees, and B. SELF, CCII (Appeal Coordinator); et al., Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

* 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). California state prisoner Raul Arellano 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 because Arellano 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 Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 986-87 (9th Cir. 2015) (to show that a threat rendered the prison grievance system unavailable, a prisoner must show that he subjectively believed prison officials would retaliate against him and that his belief was objectively reasonable).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the late filed signature page for Arellano’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002)

(setting forth standard of review and grounds for excluding evidence).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-56264

Cites, in this corpus