WHITNEY v. SIMONSEN, 317 Fed.Appx. 690 (9th Cir. 2009)
Joel P. WHITNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIMONSEN; et aL,Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-15165.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted February 23, 2008.[fn*]
Filed March 9, 2009.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.][fn*] The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Joel P. Whitney, Avenal, CA, pro se.
Megan R. O'Carroll, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-01488-FCD.
Before KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM[fn**]
[fn**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. No motions for reconsideration, clarification, or modification of this denial shall be filed or entertained.
A review of the record and the opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).Page 691
The district court properly dismissed the action because Whitney did not properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court. See Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.