Janis v. Gonzales

Ninth Circuit

Janis v. Gonzales

168 F. App'x 810

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 22, 2006

DocketNo. 04-56315

StatusPublished

This text of 168 F. App'x 810 (Janis v. Gonzales) 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

Janis v. Gonzales, 168 F. App'x 810 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Federal prisoner Gust Marion Janis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional, statutory, and common law claims related to the conditions of his confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s factual determination that Janis failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003). We review de novo dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rivera v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.

The district court did not err in determining that Janis failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing this action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (“a prisoner does not comply with [the exhaustion] requirement by exhausting available remedies during the course of the litigation”). We are not persuaded by Janis’s contention that he was not required to exhaust available administrative remedies.

The district court properly dismissed with prejudice Janis’s constitutional tort claims for damages against the United States based on sovereign immuni[812]*812ty. See Balser v. Dep’t of Justice, Office of U.S. Trustee, 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court also properly dismissed with prejudice Janis’s claim under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See Merrell v. Block, 809 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir.1987) (“Congress intended that an attorney have been retained for a prevailing pro se litigant to recover attorneys fees under the EAJA”).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Federal prisoner Gust Marion Janis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional, statutory, and common law claims related to the conditions of his confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s factual determination that Janis failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003). We review de novo dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rivera v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.

The district court did not err in determining that Janis failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing this action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (“a prisoner does not comply with [the exhaustion] requirement by exhausting available remedies during the course of the litigation”). We are not persuaded by Janis’s contention that he was not required to exhaust available administrative remedies.

The district court properly dismissed with prejudice Janis’s constitutional tort claims for damages against the United States based on sovereign immuni[812]*812ty. See Balser v. Dep’t of Justice, Office of U.S. Trustee, 327 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court also properly dismissed with prejudice Janis’s claim under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See Merrell v. Block, 809 F.2d 639, 642 (9th Cir.1987) (“Congress intended that an attorney have been retained for a prevailing pro se litigant to recover attorneys fees under the EAJA”).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 F. App'x 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janis-v-gonzales-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack