Arthur Parnell, III v. A. Tucker

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Arthur Parnell, III, appeals pro se from the district court’s order of dismissal and summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of the right to practice his Islamic faith in violation of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (“RLUIPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both the dismissal of claims for failure to exhaust, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and the grant of summary judgment, Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Parnell failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to claims against defendants Binekele and Beguhl for their alleged refusal to allow him to congregate with other Muslim inmates in the prison yard for Friday prayers. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires “proper” exhaustion). Notwithstanding his mistaken belief that it would be duplicative to file an appeal after grieving a similar prior incident, Parnell failed give prison…