Curtis v. Adkison
This text of 44 F. App'x 276 (Curtis v. Adkison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Parnell Curtis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court judgment dismissing his action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm.
Curtis admits that he failed to exhaust his claims prior to filing his complaint in federal court. The district court, therefore, properly dismissed the complaint without prejudice. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) (requiring prisoners to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to bringing suit in federal court).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
44 F. App'x 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-adkison-ca9-2002.