Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Lunsford v. Jumao-as
139 F.3d 1233
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1998-02-13
- Topic
- general
ORDER The request for publication is GRANTED. The dispositive order filed February 13, 1998, is redesignated as a published order. ORDER We agree with both parties that because John Wayne Lunsford seeks only damages in his Bivens action, he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit in the district court in light of the fact that the Administrative Remedy Program only provides for injunctive relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 327, 108 S.Ct. 592, 606, 98 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lunsford v. Jumao-as. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 7 opinions
LUNSFORD v. JUMAO-AS,139 F.3d 1233(9th Cir. 1998)
JOHN WAYNE LUNSFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C. D. JUMAO-AS, Dr.; STERLING
POLLACK, Dr.; JON HINZ; REGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; J. T.
O'BRIEN, Associate Warden; PAT W. KOEHANE, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 96-56503
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 2, 1998fn*— Pasadena, California.
Order Filed February 13, 1998
Order Published March 23, 1998
COUNSEL
Catherine Valerio Barrad, Sidley Austin, Los Angeles, California, for the appellant.
Robert I. Lester, Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles, California, for the appellees.
D.C. No. CV-96-06143-HLH
Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Frank J. Magill,fn**and Thomas G. Nelson, Circuit Judges.
[1] ORDER
[2] The request for publication is GRANTED.
[3] The dispositive order filed February 13, 1998, is redesignated as a published order.
[4] ORDER
[5] We agree with both parties that because John Wayne Lunsford seeks only damages in his Bivens action, he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit in the district court in light of the fact that the Administrative Remedy Program only provides for injunctive relief. See42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Honig v. Doe,484 U.S. 305,327(1988). Therefore, we VACATE the district court's order dismissing Lunsford's complaint and denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis, and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.
[6] VACATED AND REMANDEDPage 1234