Ira Don Parthemore v. LONNIE JACKSON, Associate Warden Mule Creek;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IRA DON PARTHEMORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LONNIE JACKSON, Associate Warden
Mule Creek; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16379
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02330-WBS-
JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16379 2
§ 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 (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.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --