Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2012

Paul Shook, Jr. v. Lionel Apker

Paul Shook, Jr. v. Lionel Apker
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided April 20, 2012 · Leavy, Paez, Bea
472 F. App'x 702

Counsel

Paul Edward Shook, Jr., Tucson, AZ, pro se.

Paul Shook, Jr. v. Lionel Apker

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Edward Shook, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Shook contends the district court erred by treating his claims of inadequate medical care as arising under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), rather than section 2241. We disagree. Despite the relief he seeks, Shook’s claims *703 concern the conditions of his confinement and are properly brought under Bivens.

The district court acted within its discretion when it dismissed Shook’s petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.