Case Name: Ira Don PARTHEMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lonnie JACKSON, Associate Warden Mule Creek; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-14
Citations: 480 F. App'x 887
Docket Number: No. 11-16379
Parties: Ira Don PARTHEMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lonnie JACKSON, Associate Warden Mule Creek; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 480
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
Ira Don PARTHEMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lonnie JACKSON, Associate Warden Mule Creek; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-16379.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 14, 2012.
Ira Don Parthemore, lone, CA, pro se.
Lakeysia Rene Beene, Martha M. Stringer, Matthew Ross Wilson, Esquire, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Ira Don Parthemore appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Parthemore's action without prejudice because Parthemore failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies before bringing his suit and failed to establish that any of his appeals were improperly screened. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-94, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (prisoner must properly exhaust, and must comply with administrative procedural requirements); see also Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24 (9th Cir.2010) (establishing the test for the improper screening exception to the exhaustion requirement).
Parthemore's contention that the California Department of Correction's accommodation policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act was raised for the first time on appeal and is waived. See Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir.2004) ("In general, we do not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.").
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.