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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C.
02California 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.
03§ 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his health and safety.
04We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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.