United States v. 2020-03-11 | 19-15569 | JEFFREY MOORE V. COCKS | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY AARON MOORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COCKS, LT - Administration at MCADF; et
al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

JIM McCABE, DON BISCHOFF; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 19-15569

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-08244-DLR-JZB

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Former Arizona state pretrial detainee Jeffrey Aaron Moore appeals pro se

*
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 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15569
from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force, sexual assault,
and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162,
1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Moore failed
to exhaust administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”) and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (the PLRA requires “proper exhaustion,” which
means “using all steps the agency holds out, and doing so properly” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1860
(2016) (describing the limited circumstances under which administrative remedies
may be effectively unavailable).
AFFIRMED.