T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T K EI TH K EM P, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. H O W A R D S K O L N I K , D i r e c t orof N D O C ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 12- 16259 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 2 0 0 2 - PM PV CF ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da P hi l i p M . P r o, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t14, 2013 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , G R A B E R , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C alifo rn ia state p riso n erK eith K em p ap p ea ls p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of va r i ous r i ght s s t e m m i ng f

r om hi s pl a c e m e nti n s e gr e ga t e d hous i ng. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED AU G 19 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 16259 2 unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l f or fai l u re t o ex h au stad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es. W y at t v . T e rhune , 315 F . 3d 1108, 1117 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed K em p’ s c l ai m s a l l egi ng i m prop er c la s s if ic a tio n a n dr e ta lia to rytr a n s f e rb e c au s e K e m p f

a ile dto e x h au s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s p r io rto f ilin g s u it. Se e W

oodf ord v . N go , 548 U . S . 81, 85, 93 -95 (20 06 ) ( ho l di ng that“ prop erexhaust i on ” i s m andat ory and re qu i re s a d h e r e n c e to a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e du r a l ru le s ) . B ec au se K em p d o es n o t raise an y a rg u m en ts re g ar d in g th e d istrict co u rt’s di s m i s s a l of

the r e m a i ni ng c ount s of hi s S i xth A m e nde d C om pl a i nt , he w a i ve s any s u c h c h a lle n g e o n ap p e a l. Se e Gr e e n wo o d v . FA A , 28 F . 3d 97 1, 97 7 (9th C i r. 1994) ( “ W e r e vi e w onl yi s s ue s w hi c h a r e a r gue d s pe c i f i c a l l ya nd di s t i nc t l yi n a pa rty ’ s ope ni ng br i e f

. W e w i l l notm anuf

a c tur e a r gum e nt s f

ora n appe l l ant , a nd a bare as se rt i on do es no tpres erve a c l ai m . . . . ” ( i nt ernalci t at i on om i tt ed)) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g K e m p ’s u n tim e ly m o tio n f o ra n e x te n s io n o f

tim e to o p p o s e d e f

e n d an ts ’ m o tio n to d is m is s . See A ha nchi an v. X

enon P i ctures , Inc. , 624 F . 3d 1253, 1258- 59 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( s e tt i ng f o rth th e s tan d a r do f

r e v ie w f o re x te n s io n r e q u e s ts .)12- 16259 3 T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng K e m p’ s m ot i on f or re consi dera t i on because K em p fai l ed t o est abl i sh grou nd s f or such re l i ef

. Se e Sc h. D ist. N o. 1J, Mul tno m ah Cnt

y. , O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F . 3d12 55 , 12 62 -63 (9th C i r. 19 93 ) ( se tt i ng forth the st andard of revi ew and g roun ds for r ec on si dera t i on ). K em p’ s c on t ent i on thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y deni ed hi s m ot i on s f or a pr e l i m i na ryi nj unc t i on a nd at e m por aryr e s tr a i ni ng or de rr e que s t i ng a c c e s s t o the pri son l aw l i brary and l egalas si st ance i s unp er suas i ve. AF F I RME D.