Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Quiroz v. Winslow
Citation: 333 F. App'x 332Docket: No. 08-17108
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 9, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Mark R. Quiroz, a California state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by the district court due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies as mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, reviewing the legal application de novo and factual findings for clear error, affirming the lower court's decision. The district court dismissed Quiroz's medical indifference claim because he did not file a Director's level grievance within the required 15-working-day deadline, failing to meet the criteria for "proper exhaustion" as established in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006). This ruling highlights that proper exhaustion is mandatory and cannot be achieved through untimely or procedurally defective grievances. The court referenced Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001), which confirmed that prisoners must utilize the grievance process as long as a remedy is available. California Code of Regulations, title 15, § 3084.6(c) also mandates submission of administrative appeals within the specified timeframe. Quiroz's counterarguments to the motion to dismiss were ruled insufficient. The court stated that it may examine evidence beyond the pleadings in assessing exhaustion of remedies. Additionally, Quiroz waived his due process claim by not addressing it in his opening brief, as established in Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (1999), meaning arguments not presented are considered waived. The appellate court will not review issues or documents that were not properly raised or submitted in the district court record. The decision is affirmed and noted as not suitable for publication or citation as precedent per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.