Randolph v. Sandoval

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COLIN M. RANDOLPH, No. 24-2203 D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00968-JLT-BAM Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

C. SANDOVAL; V. BENAVIDES; H. CARRILLO; R. SPEIDELL, Lieutenant; D. TYSON; C. PFEIFFER; R. CORLEY; S. HENDERSON; S. WILSON; M. HENDERSON; G. MARQUEZ,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Colin M. Randolph 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 First and Eighth Amendment 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 because Randolph

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 available administrative remedies before bringing an action, and

describing limited circumstances in which administrative remedies are

unavailable); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006) (explaining that

exhaustion requires compliance with prison deadlines and other procedural rules).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-2203