Steven Parks v. O. Onyeje , 616 F. App'x 308 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
STEVEN DEAN PARKS, No. 13-17027
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00999-BAM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
O. ONYEJE, M.D.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted August 25, 2015***
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steven Dean Parks appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v.
Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Parks failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies regarding his claim that Dr. Onyeje was deliberately
indifferent to Parks’s valley fever. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007)
(explaining that “unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court”); Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory
and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). Parks does not
challenge the dismissal of his other medical claims on appeal.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Parks’s motions for
default judgment because Onyeje timely filed a responsive pleading by the
deadline set by the district court. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72
(9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth the standard of review and factors for determining
whether to enter default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Parks’s motions for
sanctions because Parks failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth
2 13-17027
the standard of review and requirements for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-17027