Harris v. Spriet
Docket: No. 07-35270
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 23, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Dean Harris, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which was dismissed without prejudice for failing to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the dismissal de novo, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision. The district court correctly determined that Harris's claim, alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to the manner of his transportation to a medical appointment, was properly dismissed because he did not pursue his grievance through the highest level of administrative review. The court cited Woodford v. Ngo, emphasizing that a prisoner must adhere to all procedural rules of the administrative review process prior to filing a lawsuit in federal court. Additionally, Harris's grievance concerning Dr. Duncan's treatment was deemed inadequate for notifying prison officials of the alleged unconstitutional transport, aligning with the standards set in Griffin v. Arpaio, which states that proper exhaustion requires the prisoner to utilize all steps provided by the prison grievance system to allow the institution to address the merits of the issue. Harris's other arguments were found unpersuasive, leading to the affirmation of the district court's ruling. The disposition is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.