Nathan Spencer v. Morris
Nathan SPENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORRIS; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Jeffrey T. Miller (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Susan Graber, Edward Leavy
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHAN SPENCER, No. 09-55583 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-CV-00416-JM-JMA v. MEMORANDUM * MORRIS; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 29, 2010 ** Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Nathan Spencer, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual determinations, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Spencer failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” under section 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates are required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit in federal court).
Spencer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-55583