Edward Finley v. Howard Skolnik

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD FINLEY, No. 13-16717
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01782-JCM-
VCF
v.
HOWARD SKOLNIK; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Edward Finley, a Nevada 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 discrimination and other claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698
*
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).
F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly concluded that Finley failed to exhaust his
retaliation, deliberate indifference, conspiracy, and due process claims, and his
equal protection claim regarding the policy requiring outside registration to receive
Kosher meals, because Finley either failed to file a timely grievance as to these
claims or the relevant grievances did not provide notice of these claims. See
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (explaining that “proper
exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural
rules); Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1211 (a grievance must alert the prison to the nature of
the wrong for which redress is sought). Moreover, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Finley’s motion for reconsideration of these claims
because Finley failed to establish any grounds warranting relief. See Sch. Dist. No.
1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)
(setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief from judgment under Rule
59(e)).
The district court also concluded that Finley failed to exhaust his free
exercise and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claims relating
to the denial of Kosher meals and the failure to announce religious services, and
his equal protection claim regarding defendant Tate’s allegedly discriminatory
2 13-16717
actions. However, Finley properly exhausted these claims. See Akhtar, 698 F.3d
at 1211; Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An inmate has no
obligation to appeal from a grant of relief, or a partial grant that satisfies him, in
order to exhaust his administrative remedies.”). Therefore, we reverse and remand
for further proceedings on these claims only.
We reject Finley’s contention that the district court failed to address his state
law claims and erred when it did not stay the action so that he could continue to
exhaust his state administrative remedies.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
3 13-16717