Terry Alexander v. Los Angeles County Jail;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRY ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55741
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-06981-SVW-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Terry Alexander appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191
(9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
* 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
MAR 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-55741
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Alexander’s
claims related to (1) the failure to approve him as a wheelchair user, and (2) the
denial of a wheelchair and a cell complaint with the Americans with Disabilities
Act while in solitary confinement, because Alexander failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted administrative
remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him.
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).”
(emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); Williams, 775 F.3d at
1191 (a prisoner who does not exhaust administrative remedies must show that
“there is something particular in his case that made the existing and generally
available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him . . . .”).
We reject as meritless Alexander’s contentions that the district court did not
properly manage the discovery process and failed to take judicial notice of non-
party inmates’ assertions.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --