NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISPIN GRANADOS, No. 22-15425

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01099-SPL-MHB

v.

MEMORANDUM*

ARIZONA, STATE OF; DAVID SHINN,

Director, Director of ADOC; CARRILLO, CO III, aka per Doc 21 #5382 also known as David Carrillo; AVANT-ORTIZ, Nurse Practitioner; DRAKE, CO II, aka per Doc 21 #11869 also known as Jeffrey Drake,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Crispin Granados appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42

* 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). U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217,

1222 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Granados

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to 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 an

action, and describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are

unavailable); 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).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Granados’s pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-15425