MARK STEVENS V. JAMES BACA, No. 10-17898 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED FEB 29 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK A. STEVENS, No. 10-17898 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00524-RCJ-VPC v. MEMORANDUM * JAMES BACA; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Mark A. Stevens 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 the district court s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because Stevens failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (holding that proper exhaustion is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Stevens s motion to amend or alter the judgment because Stevens provided no basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60). We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. 2 10-17898

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.