Barry Patterson v. Dora Schriro

MEMORANDUM

1. Patterson failed to exhaust his religious discrimination claim against Officer B. Riviotta. Patterson did not claim in the internal grievance process that Riviotta discriminated against him. To the extent he asserted a discrimination claim in his disciplinary appeal, Patterson did not pursue that claim through all available levels of the administrative process. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Nor would the totality of Patterson’s grievances exhaust a religious discrimination claim as they were insufficient to “alert[ ] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress [was] sought.” Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir.2009).

2. Patterson failed to assert his retaliation claim at the summary judgment stage; it is therefore waived. See United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir.1990).

3. Patterson failed to exhaust his medical indifference claim. He did not pursue the claim through each step of the administrative grievance process. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

4. Patterson did not provide “fair notice” that he was asserting a First Amendment free exercise claim under RLUIPA. See Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir.2008). Further, summary…