Lamont Puckett v. Jamie Cortes;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAMONT PUCKETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMIE CORTES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15550
D.C. No. 4:16-cv-05878-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Lamont Puckett 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
* 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).
FILED
JAN 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15550
Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Puckett did
not exhaust his administrative remedies, and he failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to
him. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016) (setting forth
circumstances when administrative remedies are unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo,
548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (a prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies, “which
means 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)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --