IRA PARTHEMORE V. LONNIE JACKSON, No. 11-16379 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 14 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS IRA DON PARTHEMORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-16379 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02330-WBSJFM v. LONNIE JACKSON, Associate Warden Mule Creek; et al., MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 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 (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. ). AFFIRMED. 2 11-16379

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.