Shaun Darnell Garland v. Borbon

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BORBON,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-16619
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00750-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Shaun Darnell Garland appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil
rights violations for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison
FILED
JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16619 2
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to
exhaust, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and for an abuse
of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider a grant of
summary judgment, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Garland failed to exhaust
administrative remedies regrading any grievance related to his arm being slammed
in the cell door. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93–95 (2006) (holding that
“proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative
procedural rules).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Garland’s motion to
reconsider because he failed to demonstrate any ground for relief. See Sch. Dist.
No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1262.
Garland’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --