RONALD FELDMEIER V. P. HAUSER, No. 15-16176 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD M. FELDMEIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16176 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02027-DGC MEMORANDUM* P. HAUSER, Case Manager, Corrections Corporation of America at La Palma Correctional Center, Eloy, AZ; R. WILLIAMS, Unit Manager, Corrections of America at La Palma Correctional Center, Eloy, AZ, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Ronald M. Feldmeier, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We reverse and remand. The district court concluded that Feldmeier’s Form 22 failed to “clearly state” the issue such that it put prison officials on notice of the alleged wrong. We disagree. The Form 22 identified the topic as “threats by cellmate,” and explained that Feldmeier’s cellmate “regularly uses physical intimidation and threats of violence against” Feldmeier and that Feldmeier needed officials to help in finding another cellmate. These allegations were sufficient to clearly state the issue. We therefore reverse and remand. In light of the decision to remand, we do not reach the remaining issues on appeal. We do not consider arguments, allegations, or evidence raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009); Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988). REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 15-16176
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.
