Rex Jeffrey Walls v. PHAN, Doctor;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
REX JEFFREY WALLS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PHAN, Doctor; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16750
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01616-NVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, circuit judges.
Arizona state prisoner Rex Jeffrey Walls appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging civil rights
violations. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
FILED
JUL 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16750 2
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Walls’s Eighth
Amendment claims because Walls failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his hernia. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-35 (1994) (holding Eighth Amendment
claim requires prison official to have a sufficiently culpable state of mind).
The district court properly dismissed Walls’s First Amendment claim
regarding his religious dietary restrictions because he failed to exhaust
administrative remedies with respect to this claim. 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).
Walls’s remaining contentions, including his argument regarding the
unauthorized use of his medical records, are unavailing.
Walls’s “Motion to Withdraw All Appellant Medical Files From Attorney”
and his motion for default judgment are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --