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, which found he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the application of law de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error. The district court correctly dismissed Quiroz’s medical indifference claim because he did not submit a Director’s level grievance within the mandatory 15-working-day deadline, which is necessary for "proper exhaustion" as established in Woodford v. Ngo. It is emphasized that proper exhaustion cannot be achieved through untimely or procedurally defective grievances. The court also referenced Booth v. Churner, stating that a prisoner must exhaust available remedies through the grievance process if any relief can be granted. Quiroz’s counterarguments against the dismissal were inadequate, as indicated in Wyatt v. Terhune, which allows courts to evaluate beyond the pleadings when addressing motions to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Additionally, Quiroz waived his due process claim by not addressing it in his opening brief, leading to the conclusion that appellate courts do not consider unraised issues at the district level. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, stating that the decision is not suitable for publication and does not serve as precedent according to 9th Cir. R. 36-3.