Shawn Yaeger v. FELIPE MARTINEZ, Jr., Warden, individual capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAWN YAEGER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FELIPE MARTINEZ, Jr., Warden,
individual capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55175
D.C. No.
2:19-cv-07059-SVW-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2024**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Shawn Yaeger, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in Yaeger’s action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that
prison defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in
* 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
FEB 15 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Because the facts are known to the parties,
we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. We affirm.
I.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Yaeger failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies against defendant Dr. Watson and Yaeger
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative
remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,
90 (2006)(“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . ‘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));
McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (requiring inmates
to exhaust administrative procedures prior to filing suit in federal court); see also
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002) (holding that revised 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a) applies to Bivens actions).
II.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Yaeger’s request
for appointment of counsel because Yaeger failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --