THOMAS HARGROVE V. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF, No. 11-35470 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS RANDALL HARGROVE; MICHAEL STEVEN NOVAK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, Nos. 11-35470 11-35518 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00363-RBL v. MEMORANDUM * WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 13, 2012 Before: ** CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Washington state prisoners Thomas Randall Hargrove and Michael Steven Novak appeal pro se from the district court s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court s dismissal for failure to exhaust. O Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, id., and we affirm. Dismissal for failure to exhaust was proper because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they fully exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring dismissal without prejudice when there is no pre-suit exhaustion). Plaintiffs contention that the district court failed to conduct a de novo review is unavailing. AFFIRMED. 2 11-35470