Anthony Tyrone Campbell v. J. MENDEZ, Sergeant;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY TYRONE CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. MENDEZ, Sergeant; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
JEFFREY BEARD; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 16-16434
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00801-DAD-
SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Anthony Tyrone Campbell appeals pro se from the
* 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
MAR 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-16434
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a district court’s summary judgment on the basis of failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir.
2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Campbell
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly
exhausted his available administrative remedies as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), or whether administrative remedies were
effectively unavailable. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1856, 1860 (2016)
(proper administrative exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory, but may not be
required when “prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a
grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation”);
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 in original)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --