Hargrove v. Washington State Department of Corrections
This text of 488 F. App'x 268 (Hargrove v. Washington State Department of Corrections) 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
In these consolidated appeals, Washington state prisoners Thomas Randall Har-grove and Michael Steven Novak appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust. O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, id., and we affirm.
Dismissal for failure to exhaust was proper because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they fully exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (requiring dismissal without prejudice when there is no pre-suit exhaustion).
Plaintiffs’ contention that the district court failed to conduct a de novo review is unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
488 F. App'x 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hargrove-v-washington-state-department-of-corrections-ca9-2012.