Karimi Kwaa Sutton v. N. GUZMAN, Correctional Officer; G. GIESSNER, Correctional Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARIMI KWAA SUTTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
N. GUZMAN, Correctional Officer; G.
GIESSNER, Correctional Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15817
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02369-KJM-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Karimi Kwaa Sutton appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162,
* 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
JUN 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15817
1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sutton was
required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his claims, failed to do
so, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Ross v. Blake,
578 U.S. 632, 644-45 (2016) (describing limited circumstances in which
administrative remedies are effectively unavailable); see also 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).” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --