Kenneth Webb v. Secretary U.S. Army , 690 F. App'x 1014 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 17 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KENNETH A. WEBB,                                No.    16-55652
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:15-cv-08807-SVW-SS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    SECRETARY U.S. ARMY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 8, 2017**
    Before:      REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    Kenneth A. Webb appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
    his action against the Secretary of the United States Army. We have jurisdiction
    under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
    12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm in part,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    vacate in part, and remand.
    The district court properly dismissed Webb’s action because Webb failed to
    allege facts sufficient to show that he had exhausted his administrative remedies or
    was excused from exhaustion. See Muhammad v. Sec’y of Army, 
    770 F.2d 1494
    ,
    1495 (9th Cir. 1985) (military personnel are required to exhaust available
    intraservice remedies before seeking judicial review); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
    
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (complaint must offer more than “naked assertions
    devoid of further factual enhancement” (citation, internal quotation marks, and
    alterations omitted)). Because a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative
    remedies should be without prejudice, see O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 
    502 F.3d 1056
    , 1063 (9th Cir. 2007), we vacate the judgment in part and remand for the
    district court to dismiss Webb’s action without prejudice.
    The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
    AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
    2                                   16-55652
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-55652

Citation Numbers: 690 F. App'x 1014

Filed Date: 5/17/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023