Bernardino v. Diaz

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-2536
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLAUDIO BERNARDINO, Jr., No. 24-2536 D.C. No. 5:21-cv-01629-EJD Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

Secretary of CDCR RALPH DIAZ; Warden TAMMY FOSS; THOMAS (Captain); RANGEL, SVSP Correctional Officer, Captain; SANDOVAL, SVSP Correctional Officer; MORIN, SVSP Correctional Officer; THORPE, SVSP Correctional Officer; FREEMAN, SVSP Correctional Officer; VALLES, SVSP Correctional Officer; VILLANUEVA, SVSP Correctional Officer; CHAPIN, SVSP Correctional Officer; MONTE GRANDE, M.D.; EDUARDO DOMINGUES, M.D.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2025**

* 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). Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Claudio Bernardino, Jr., 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 federal and state law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo,

775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bernardino’s

federal claims because Bernardino failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative

remedies were 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 suit, and describing limited circumstances in which

administrative remedies are unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006)

(noting that proper exhaustion requires “using all steps that the agency holds out,

and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)”

(emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Bernardino’s state law claims. See Dyack v. N.

Mariana Islands, 317 F.3d 1030, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of

review and explaining that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental

2 24-2536 jurisdiction over state law claims where the district court “has dismissed all claims

over which it has original jurisdiction” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

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

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

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

The motion (Docket Entry No. 29) to maintain under seal the reply brief and

motion to seal is granted. The clerk will maintain Docket Entry Nos. 27 and 29

under seal. All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-2536