Jody Carr v. Carlyn, 699 F. App'x 722

Plaintiff Jody R.O. Carr, an Idaho state prisoner, sued prison staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations related to grievance processing and mail regulation.
The district court granted summary judgment for several individual defendants on the ground that Carr failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
The court also granted summary judgment for two defendants (Maddox and Woodland) based on the reasonableness of the prison regulations those defendants followed concerning inmate mail.
Carr appealed pro se; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the grants of summary judgment de novo.
The appellate record showed evidence that prison staff refused to collect Carr’s concern forms and that a grievance coordinator rejected Carr’s grievances as “not grievable” when he attempted to exhaust claims against certain defendants.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part (exhaustion failure and reasonableness of mail regulations for some defendants), reversed in part (denying summary judgment on exhaustion for claims against Higgins and Mechtel), and remanded those claims for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies (claims against multiple defendants)	Carr contends he attempted to use grievance process but was prevented or blocked	Defendants argue Carr did not complete required administrative exhaustion before filing suit	Affirmed for many defendants: Carr failed to exhaust and did not show administrative remedies were effectively unavailable
Whether prison mail regulations are reasonably related to penological interests (Maddox, Woodland)	Carr argues the regulations unconstitutionally restricted his mail rights	Defendants assert regulations were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests	Affirmed: Carr failed to create a genuine dispute that the regulations were unreasonable
Whether prison staff actions made administrative remedies effectively unavailable (Higgins)	Carr offered evidence staff refused to collect his concern forms, preventing exhaustion	Defendants maintain procedures were available and followed	Reversed as to Higgins: evidence created a genuine dispute that remedies were effectively unavailable
Whether grievance coordinator’s rejections rendered remedies unavailable (Mechtel)	Carr showed two grievances were rejected as "not grievable," blocking exhaustion	Defendants contend rejections were proper under grievance rules	Reversed as to Mechtel: the record raised a genuine dispute that administrative procedures operated as a dead end

Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment and exhaustion issues)
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment review in civil rights cases)
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (when administrative remedies are "effectively unavailable")
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with procedural rules)
Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264 (9th Cir. 1995) (reasonableness test for prison mail regulations)
Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006) (factors for assessing reasonableness of prison regulations)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (administrative remedies unavailable when system is a "dead end")
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues not raised in opening brief are forfeited on appeal)