Gregory Krug v. Evelyn Castro

Ninth Circuit

Gregory Krug v. Evelyn Castro

621 F. App'x 387

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 22, 2015

Docket14-55549

StatusUnpublished

This text of 621 F. App'x 387 (Gregory Krug v. Evelyn Castro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gregory Krug v. Evelyn Castro, 621 F. App'x 387 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Gregory Charles Krug appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc), and we affirm.

*388 The district court properly concluded that Krug failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because Krug did not exhaust his relevant grievances to the final level of review before presenting his claims to the district court, and he did not show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (exhaustion requirement applies to federal prisoners suing under Bivens); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir.2010) (describing limited circumstances where improper screening renders administrative remedies unavailable or where exhaustion might otherwise be excused).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Krug’s motion for reconsideration because Krug failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and explaining circumstances warranting reconsideration).

Krug’s motion to extend the time to file a reply brief, filed on March 23, 2015, is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief received on April 6, 2015.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Gregory Charles Krug appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc), and we affirm.

*388 The district court properly concluded that Krug failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because Krug did not exhaust his relevant grievances to the final level of review before presenting his claims to the district court, and he did not show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (exhaustion requirement applies to federal prisoners suing under Bivens); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir.2010) (describing limited circumstances where improper screening renders administrative remedies unavailable or where exhaustion might otherwise be excused).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Krug’s motion for reconsideration because Krug failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and explaining circumstances warranting reconsideration).

Krug’s motion to extend the time to file a reply brief, filed on March 23, 2015, is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief received on April 6, 2015.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Juan Albino v. Lee Baca

747 F.3d 1162 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 F. App'x 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-krug-v-evelyn-castro-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack