Lafonzo Turner v. S. Byers

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 31 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LAFONZO R. TURNER, No. 22-16553 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01869-WBS-JDP v. MEMORANDUM* S. BYERS, Sgt. Individual Capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 29, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Lafonzo R. Turner 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 excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Turner 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 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)).

Turner’s motion (Docket Entry No. 68) to strike defendant’s video evidence is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-16553