Nicholas Patrick v. Orange County Sheriff’s Department;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICHOLAS PATRICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55754
D.C. No. 8:16-cv-00318-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Paul L. Abrams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted October 12, 2021***
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Nicholas Patrick appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
* 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).
FILED
OCT 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-55754
alleging excessive force and sexual harassment while he was detained at the
Orange County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Patrick 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) (“[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).” (citation,
internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172
(explaining that once the defendant has carried the burden to prove that there was
an available administrative remedy, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce
evidence showing that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to
him).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding many of Patrick’s
exhibits because they were irrelevant to the issue before the court or constituted
inadmissible hearsay. See Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th
Cir. 2002) (standard of review for district court’s rulings concerning evidence in a
summary judgment motion; district court must be affirmed “unless its evidentiary

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-55754
ruling was manifestly erroneous and prejudicial”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --