# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 23 05

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ben jam in E. Schr ei be r
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lPla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
NickLud wick ; St ep he n S pa rk s
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lDefe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 19 Fil ed : M arch 1, 2 01 9 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, STRAS, andKOBES, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Io wa in m at e Ben

jam in Sch rei be r br ou gh t th is 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n al le gi ng th at Io wa St at e Pen it en ti ary of fic i a l s an d Uni ve rs it y of Io wa Hos pi ta l an d Cl in ic s pr ov id ers vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s by in ad equa te ly tre at in g a ur in ary co nd it io n an d fai li ngto co m

pl y wit h hi s he al th care di rec t iv es

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d th e ho sp it al 1 de fen da nt s in a pr es erv ic e or de r an d gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t di sm is sing the pr ison of fic ia ls fo r fai lu re to ex ha us t ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. Sch rei be r ap pe al s

. A f te r
care fu l d e n ov o re vi ew of th e rec or d, we af

fir m

.

W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at Sch rei be r’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e pr is on of fic ia ls m us t be di sm is se d fo r fai lu re to ex ha us t ap pl ic ab le pr is on rem ed ie s. See 42 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a) ; Ham

m et t v. Co fie ld , 68 1 F.3 d 94 5 (8 th C i r

. 20 12 ). Sch rei be r arg ue s th at th e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of hi s ap po in te d co un se l pr ev en te d hi m fro m
s u b mitt in g al l hi s at te m

pt s to gr ie ve hi s cl ai m s. Howev er, th ere is no st atu t o r y o r
co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to effe ct iv e as si st an ce of ap po in te d co un se l in a ci vi l cas e. See, e.g ., Tay lo r v. Di ck el , 29 3 F .3d42 7, 4 31 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.
Sch rei be r arg ue s th e di s t r i c t c ou rt erre d in di sm is si ng hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e ho sp it al de fen da nt s bec au se he was en ti tl edto di sc ov ery to de te rm in e whe th er the y vi ol at ed hi s “ do no t res us ci ta te ” rig ht s un de r Io wa Co de Ann

. §§ 14 4A.2 (1 3) , 14 4A.3 (1 ), an d 14 4B .9(2 ). Howev er, Sch rei be r’s §1 98 3 co m pl ai nt di d no t al le ge an y st at e l a w cl ai m s un de r th e di st ric t co urt’s su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on

. W e do no t
co ns id er cl ai m s rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

. See Jo se ph v. All e n, 71 2 F.3 d 12 22 , 12 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). As Sch rei be r do es no t m ean in gf ul ly arg ue an y pr es erv ed fed eral cl ai m ag ai ns t th e ho sp it al de fen da nt s, we affi rm th ei r di sm is sa l. See Ahl be rg
v. Ch ry ls er Co rp ., 48 1 F.3 d 63 0, 63 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (p oi nt s no t arg ue d on ap pe al are waiv ed ); Mo or e v. Si m s, 20 0 F.3 d 11 70 , 11 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (d e no vo rev ie w of 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5( e)(2 )(B) pre se rv ic e d is m is sa l).

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t i s af fir m ed . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt W

. Prat t, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1 Dis tri ctof I owa

. -2

-