James Marion Sims v. B. Hendrick;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES MARION SIMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
B. HENDRICK; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15620
D.C. No. 5:14-cv-04892-PSG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Paul S. Grewal, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 9, 2017***
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
James Marion Sims, a California state prisoner, 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 parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Sims’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
FILED
AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15620
district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Williams v. Paramo, 775
F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sims did not
properly exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning his claim or show that
exhaustion was effectively unavailable. See Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120
(9th Cir. 2009) (“[A] grievance [only] suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of
the wrong for which redress is sought.” ); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th
Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are rendered
“effectively unavailable”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --