Ira Parthemore v. Lonnie Jackson

Ninth Circuit

Ira Parthemore v. Lonnie Jackson

480 F. App'x 887

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 14, 2012

Docket11-16379

StatusUnpublished

This text of 480 F. App'x 887 (Ira Parthemore v. Lonnie Jackson) 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.

Bluebook

Ira Parthemore v. Lonnie Jackson, 480 F. App'x 887 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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. § 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, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (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.”).

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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. § 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, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (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.”).

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 F. App'x 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ira-parthemore-v-lonnie-jackson-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack