Patterson v. Greeley

Ninth Circuit

Patterson v. Greeley

325 F. App'x 541

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 2009

DocketNo. 05-15235

StatusPublished

This text of 325 F. App'x 541 (Patterson v. Greeley) 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

Patterson v. Greeley, 325 F. App'x 541 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

Barry Northcross Patterson, an Arizona prisoner, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLEA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Patterson concedes that Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2008), forecloses the argument in his opening brief that he satisfied the exhaustion requirement. As to Patterson’s claim that prison officials frustrated his ability to grieve, his conclusory pleadings and submissions are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Patterson failed to link any alleged obstruction to his ability to grieve with the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim at issue in this action.

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

MEMORANDUM

*

Barry Northcross Patterson, an Arizona prisoner, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLEA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Patterson concedes that Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2008), forecloses the argument in his opening brief that he satisfied the exhaustion requirement. As to Patterson’s claim that prison officials frustrated his ability to grieve, his conclusory pleadings and submissions are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Patterson failed to link any alleged obstruction to his ability to grieve with the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim at issue in this action.

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F. App'x 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-greeley-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack