SHAYKH MUHAMMAD ABDUL BIN TALAL AL SAUD, AKA Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Aziz Khalid Bin… v. ALBERT TREVINO, Prison Security Guard

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAYKH MUHAMMAD ABDUL BIN
TALAL AL SAUD, AKA Shaykh
Muhammad Abdul Aziz Khalid Bin Talal
Alsaud,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ALBERT TREVINO, Prison Security Guard;
RICARDO MONTES, Security Captain;
RIDENOUR, Sergeant; DAVID SHINN,
Director, ADOC Director; C. SIERA,
Position Guard at Arizona State Prison
Florence-Eyman SMU-1,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16088
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00022-SPL-JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
* 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
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16088
Arizona state prisoner Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Bin Talal Al Saud 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 various
constitutional claims. 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 on Al Saud’s
excessive force claims because Al Saud failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies 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, 638, 641-44 (2016) (explaining that an inmate must exhaust such
administrative remedies as are available before bringing an action, and describing
limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are unavailable);
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, internal quotation
marks, and emphasis omitted)); Albino, 747 F.3d at 1172 (once the defendant has
carried the burden to prove there was an available administrative remedy, the
burden shifts to the plaintiff to produce evidence showing that administrative
remedies were effectively unavailable to him).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Al Saud’s motion to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16088
produce documents because Al Saud failed to show that he was actually and
substantially prejudiced. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1084,
1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and noting that a district
court’s “decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest
showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to
the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --