Issa Doreh v. Unknown Rodriguez, named as Ms. Rodriguez, Housing Unit Manager at FCI Tucson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISSA DOREH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN RODRIGUEZ, named as Ms.
Rodriguez, Housing Unit Manager at FCI
Tucson; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
W. PRATT, named as Mr. W. Pratt, Food
Manager at FCI Tucson; L. R. MOLINAR,
named as Ms. Rodriguez, Mail-Room Staff
Supervisor at FCI Tucson; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15432
D.C. No. 4:16-cv-00108-JAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Former federal prisoner Issa Doreh appeals pro se from the district court’s
* 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
JAN 19 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-15432
judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his action
brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging an Eighth Amendment claim. We review
for clear error the district court’s factual findings relevant to its exhaustion
determination. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We
affirm.
The district court did not commit clear error by finding, following an
evidentiary hearing, that Doreh failed to exhaust administrative remedies on his
Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim, and that Doreh’s administrative
remedies were not effectively unavailable. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 638,
642-44 (2016) (explaining that an inmate must exhaust “such administrative
remedies as are available” before bringing suit, and describing limited
circumstances under which administrative remedies are effectively unavailable);
Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[I]f the district
court’s findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the
appellate court cannot reverse even if it is convinced it would have found
differently.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-15432
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --