Summary
affirming district court's dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A where plaintiff conceded that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint
Summary of this case from Whalen v. California Department of CorrectionsOpinion
No. 07-16113.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 25, 2008.
Matthew Ansel, California State Prison, Vacaville, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garland E. Burrell, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-02380-GEB/DAD.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Matthew Ansel, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A his action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ansel's claims against the Superior Courts of California under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because those claims were de facto appeals of state court decisions. See Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that Rooker-Feldman bars a federal court from ordering a state court to reconsider its decision).
The district court properly dismissed Ansel's claims against the remaining defendants because Ansel conceded that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint. See O'Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that a prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies for claims under federal law); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) ("A prisoner's concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal[.]").