PAUL EDWARD SHOOK, Jr. v. LIONEL C. APKER, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL EDWARD SHOOK, Jr.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LIONEL C. APKER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-15735
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00264-FRZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Paul Edward Shook, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
APR 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15735 2
Shook contends the district court erred by treating his claims of inadequate
medical care as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), rather than section 2241. We disagree. Despite the relief he
seeks, Shook’s claims concern the conditions of his confinement and are properly
brought under Bivens.
The district court acted within its discretion when it dismissed Shook’s
petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order to file an
amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
1992).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --