Huff v. Moore

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORDAN HUFF, No. 23-2383 D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01248-HBK Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* THOMAS MOORE, Doctor at USP Atwater; ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN, Former Warden at USP Atwater; STEVE LAKES, Warden at USP Atwater; FNU HESS; USP ATWATER PRISON OFFICIALS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Helena M. Barch-Kuchta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted May 21, 2025*** Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).  Federal prisoner Jordan Huff appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Huff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (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); see also Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643-44 (2016) (setting forth circumstances in which administrative remedies are effectively unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires “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)). AFFIRMED. 2 23-2383