PAUL SHOOK, JR. V. LIONEL APKER, No. 11-15735 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL EDWARD SHOOK, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant, No. 11-15735 D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00264-FRZ v. MEMORANDUM * LIONEL C. APKER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Paul Edward Shook, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * 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). Shook contends the district court erred by treating his claims of inadequate medical care as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), rather than section 2241. We disagree. Despite the relief he seeks, Shook s claims concern the conditions of his confinement and are properly brought under Bivens. The district court acted within its discretion when it dismissed Shook s petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court s order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). AFFIRMED. 2 11-15735

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.