NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 29, 2024 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01064-GMN-NJK
Before: Friedland, Bennett, and Sanchez, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Nevada state prisoner Kentrell D. Welch 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 deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 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 vacate and remand.
The district court granted summary judgment on Welch's claims, finding that defendants met their initial burden of showing that Welch did not fully exhaust any of the grievances he initiated related to his claims, and that Welch failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether such administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. However, the evidence submitted by defendants includes a grievance related to Welch's medical deliberate indifference claims (No. 20063045067) that was fully exhausted by Welch within the relevant period. A complete copy of grievance No. 20063045067, including attachments, does not appear in the record. We vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to develop the record concerning grievance No. 20063045067 and then to evaluate Welch's exhausted claims in the first instance.
Grievance No. 20063045067 is in the record as part of an exhibit appearing to be a print-out of an internal Nevada Department of Corrections database.
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).
All pending motions are denied.
The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
[*] 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).