Timothy Deanore Wilkins v. Correctional Officers

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
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.
No. 22-55745
D.C. No.
2:21-cv-03383-VAP-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, Chief District Judge, Presiding
FILED
MAR 7 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted March 7, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges
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,1 and we affirm.
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,2 the record lacks evidence that
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1 Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc).
2 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.
22-55745 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Wilkins actually feared retaliation for using the administrative grievance process,
let alone that any fear of retaliation was objectively reasonable.3
AFFIRMED.
3 See McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 987–88 (9th Cir. 2015).
22-55745 3

-- 3 of 3 --