Rodney L. Garrott v. MICHAEL G LeFRANCIS, Corrections Officer, King County Dept. of Adult Detention

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY L. GARROTT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL G LeFRANCIS, Corrections
Officer, King County Dept. of Adult
Detention; KING COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-35358
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00131-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Rodney L. Garrott appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force against
FILED
JAN 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-35358 2
him while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust and for clear error
any underlying factual findings. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir.
2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Garrott’s action without prejudice
because Garrott failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (requiring proper and timely exhaustion of
prisoner claims). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Garrott failed
to pursue all levels of administrative grievances available to him. Cf. Sapp, 623
F.3d at 822-23 (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are
rendered “effectively unavailable”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Garrott’s motion for
reconsideration because Garrott failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and setting forth requirements for
reconsideration).
We do not intend this disposition to be used to foreclose any argument
Garrott may raise, or to limit any potential relief to which Garrott may be entitled,
in Garrott’s related action, Garrott v. Stewart, No. 11-35849, which alleges that

-- 2 of 3 --

10-35358 3
defendants violated Garrott’s constitutional rights by actively interfering with his
ability to litigate this action.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --