KIER KEAND’E GARDNER, AKA Chris Gardner v. Three Unknown Officers of Imu- North of Wsp, in Individual and Official Capacities;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIER KEAND’E GARDNER, AKA Chris
Gardner,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THREE UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF IMU-
NORTH OF WSP, in Individual and Official
Capacities; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-35783
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-05238-TOR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Kier Keand’e Gardner appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an
Eighth Amendment violation arising from the denial of meals. We have
* 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
JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35783
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Albino v. Baca,
747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gardner
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable.
See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires “using
all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency
addresses the issues on the merits)” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also FTC v. Neovi, Inc., 604 F.3d 1150, 1159 (9th Cir. 2010) ( “[A
court] need not find a genuine issue of fact if, in its determination, the particular
declaration was uncorroborated and self-serving.”).
Gardner’s opposed motion for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 16) and
motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 20) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --