FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10768337
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Loyd v. Alvarez

No. 10768337 · Decided January 2, 2026
No. 10768337 · Ninth Circuit · 2026 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
January 2, 2026
Citation
No. 10768337
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL RAY LOYD, No. 24-2374 D.C. No. 5:21-cv-01817-SPG-SHK Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* V. ALVAREZ, M.D.; W. PAYNE; BRYANT, Sgt., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Sherilyn Peace Garnett, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2025** Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Daniel Ray Loyd 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 deliberate indifference to his health and safety. We * 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). 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 Loyd failed to exhaust administrative remedies or 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, 642-44 (2016) (explaining that an inmate must exhaust such administrative remedies as are available before bringing suit and describing limited circumstances under which administrative remedies are effectively unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining that exhaustion requires “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 24-2374
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Loyd v. Alvarez in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on January 2, 2026.
Use the citation No. 10768337 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →