Case ID: f-appx_588/html/0680-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ira Don PARTHEMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William KNIPP, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17303.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 18, 2014.
    Ira Don Parthemore, Chowchilla, CA, pro se.
    Leena M. Sheet, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). ■ ■
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ira Don Parthemore, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Parthemore’s claims against Conlon, Cross, and Rogers for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Parthe-more did not raise in his grievance the claims that he now raises against these defendants in this action. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir.2010) (a grievance must “provide notice of the harm being grieved” and “[t]he level of detail in an administrative grievance necessary to properly exhaust a claim is determined by the prison’s applicable grievance procedures” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.