Case ID: f-appx_675/html/0785-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronald M. FELDMEIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
    No. 15-16176
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 26, 2017
    Ronald M. Feldmeier, Pro Se
    Kevin L. Nguyen, Attorney, Daniel Patrick Struck, Esquire, Managing Senior Counsel, Struck, Wieneke & Love, PLC, Chandler, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ronald M. Feldmeier, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 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 Feld-meier’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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.