Mark A. Stevens v. James Baca;

10-17898Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 29, 2012

Full text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARK A. STEVENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES BACA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17898
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00524-RCJ-VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Mark A. Stevens 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
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17898 2
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual
determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Stevens failed to
exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires
adherence to administrative procedural rules).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Stevens’s motion to
amend or alter the judgment because Stevens provided no basis for reconsideration.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. See
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.