Ira Parthemore v. William Knipp

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRA DON PARTHEMORE, No. 13-17303
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01829-MCE-
EFB
v.
WILLIAM KNIPP, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ira Don Parthemore, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d
*
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).
1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Parthemore’s claims against Conlon,
Cross, and Rogers for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because
Parthemore did not raise in his grievance the claims that he now raises against
these defendants in this action. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95
(2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to
administrative procedural rules); Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 2010)
(a grievance must “provide notice of the harm being grieved” and “[t]he level of
detail in an administrative grievance necessary to properly exhaust a claim is
determined by the prison’s applicable grievance procedures” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-17303