Billy Driver v. B. HEDRICK, Chief Deputy;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BILLY DRIVER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
B. HEDRICK, Chief Deputy; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16747
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02226-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Billy Driver appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-16747 2
The district court properly dismissed Driver’s action because Driver failed to
exhaust his administrative grievances concerning the incident underlying his claim
through the required levels. See id. at 818, 821 (discussing levels of review
required for proper exhaustion under California state regulations).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Driver’s motion for
default judgment because defendants waived their right to reply to Driver’s action
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and the district court did not order them to
file a reply. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g) (defendant may waive the right to reply to
any action brought by a prisoner, after which the court may order defendant to
respond); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth
standard of review and factors for entry of default judgment).
Driver’s contentions regarding the allegedly erroneous denial of his motions
for disqualification, for appointment of counsel, and for early medical release, and
regarding miscellaneous alleged misconduct by defendants, are unpersuasive.
Driver’s motion for a “criminal obstruction investigation against the state
attorney general,” filed on May 16, 2013 is denied.
Driver’s motion for an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order, filed on May 22, 2013, is denied.
Driver’s motion for an order compelling oral argument, filed on May 23,

-- 2 of 3 --

12-16747 3
2013, is denied.
Driver’s requests for appointment of counsel on appeal and on
“reversal/remand/modification,” set forth in his briefs, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --