Smith v. Smith

MEMORANDUM **

Frederick Wayne Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the judgment of the district court granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on Smith’s consolidated civil rights complaints. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. *575 Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196 , 1200 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

Because Smith filed his complaint in CV-96-5419 prior to the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and the district court properly concluded that Smith’s claims were time-barred. See Bishop v. Lewis, 155 F.3d 1094, 1096 (9th Cir.1998) (holding PLRA’s exhaustion requirement not retroactive); see also Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir.1999) (holding applicable statute of limitations is one year).

With respect to CV-96-6202, the district court properly dismissed Smith’s Eighth Amendment claim. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 , 117 S.Ct. 1584 , 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997) (concluding § 1983 claim not cognizable where it necessarily implies the invalidity of prison disciplinary proceeding). The district…