George Colbert v. M. Carrasco

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner George Kenneth Colbert 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 a First Amendment retaliation claim. 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 Colbert failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his available administrative remedies with respect to the claim at issue in this case. See id. at 1171-72 (setting forth respective burdens where a defendant argues that a prisoner failed to exhaust under the Prison Litigation Reform Act); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 824 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A grievance suffices to exhaust a claim if it puts the prison on adequate notice of the problem for which the prisoner seeks- redress.”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.