Case Name: John C. MONTUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-25
Citations: 10 F. App'x 534
Docket Number: No. 99-15707; D.C. No. CV-98-01688-GEB
Parties: John C. MONTUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
John C. MONTUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-15707.
D.C. No. CV-98-01688-GEB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2001.
Decided May 25, 2001.
Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John C. Montue, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), see Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Montue's Eighth Amendment claim because Montue failed to allege that he had been exposed to the risk of harm of which he complained. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35-36, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993).
Montue contends that the grooming regulation violated his due process rights. We do not consider this issue because it is raised for the first time on appeal. See Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 83 F.3d 1060, 1063 (9th Cir.1996).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.