Ira Parthemore v. Lonnie Jackson ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          SEP 14 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    IRA DON PARTHEMORE,                              No. 11-16379
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02330-WBS-
    JFM
    v.
    LONNIE JACKSON, Associate Warden                 MEMORANDUM *
    Mule Creek; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted September 10, 2012 **
    Before:        WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Ira Don Parthemore appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action for failure to exhaust
    administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo,
    Wyatt v. Terhune, 
    315 F.3d 1108
    , 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Parthemore’s action without prejudice
    because Parthemore failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies before
    bringing his suit and failed to establish that any of his appeals were improperly
    screened. See Woodford v. Ngo, 
    548 U.S. 81
    , 93-94 (2006) (prisoner must
    properly exhaust, and must comply with administrative procedural requirements);
    see also Sapp v. Kimbrell, 
    623 F.3d 813
    , 823-24 (9th Cir. 2010) (establishing the
    test for the improper screening exception to the exhaustion requirement).
    Parthemore’s contention that the California Department of Correction’s
    accommodation policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act was raised for
    the first time on appeal and is waived. See Cold Mountain v. Garber, 
    375 F.3d 884
    , 891 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In general, we do not consider an issue raised for the
    first time on appeal.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    11-16379
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-16379

Judges: Wardlaw, Clifton, Smith

Filed Date: 9/14/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024