Anthony Gaston v. E. MORALES, Correctional Sergeant at KVSP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY GASTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
E. MORALES, Correctional Sergeant at
KVSP,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-16842
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01395-RRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 18, 2015***
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Gaston, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force.
FILED
NOV 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
court’s grant of summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gaston did
not properly exhaust his grievance using all steps of the process, and he did not
show that 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).” (emphasis, internal
citation, and quotation marks omitted)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24,
826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances where improper
screening renders administrative remedies unavailable or where exhaustion might
otherwise be excused).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gaston’s motion for
reconsideration because Gaston failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and explaining circumstances
warranting reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
14-16842 2

-- 2 of 2 --