CHRISTOPHER CARREA, Jr. v. State of California;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER CARREA, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
No. 11-56287
D.C. No. 5:07-cv-01148-CAS-
MAN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Christopher Carrea, Jr., appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations in connection with his medical care and placement in
FILED
JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

administrative segregation following a race riot. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Watson v. Weeks, 436 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo a
dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and for clear error the
district court’s underlying factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d
1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any ground supported by the
record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.
2008). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed defendants Schwarzenegger, Tilton,
and Woodford because Carrea failed to allege facts demonstrating that these
defendants were personally involved in any constitutional violation or that there
was a causal connection between their conduct and any alleged violation. See
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing the requirements
for establishing supervisory liability).
Dismissal of Carrea’s due process claim against defendant Warden Polous
was proper on a different ground stated by the district court. Carrea failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies or show that such remedies were effectively
unavailable. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 940-42 (9th Cir. 2005) (an inmate
must fully exhaust administrative remedies when any remedy remains available to
11-56287 2

-- 2 of 3 --

him, even if he has been afforded some measure of administrative relief); cf. Nunez
v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010) (excusing prisoner’s failure to
exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so). Because the proper remedy
for non-exhaustion is dismissal without prejudice, we vacate the judgment and
remand for entry of dismissal without prejudice as to this claim only. See Wyatt,
315 F.3d at 1120.
We reject Carrea’s contentions concerning judicial bias and the district
court’s alleged failure to grant additional leave to amend, consider the factual
allegations in his complaint, and consider judicially noticeable materials.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Carrea’s motions concerning his substitute reply brief are granted. The clerk
shall file the reply brief received on July 15, 2013.
All other pending motions are denied.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.
11-56287 3

-- 3 of 3 --