Summary
finding that a grievance challenging RVR findings related to an assault was not sufficient to exhaust a failure to protect claim related to that assault
Summary of this case from Davis v. SeihelOpinion
No. 13-15178
08-20-2014
AMAZING STEWART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. L. BROWN; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01093-LJO-JLT MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Amazing Stewart appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a failure-to-protect claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Stewart failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because Stewart did not notify prison officials as to the nature of the wrong underlying his failure-to-protect claim in a timely manner. See id. at 818, 821-24 (describing standard for proper exhaustion and explaining that an inmate's grievance must comply with time limits and provide enough information to alert prison officials to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2009) (grievance must give sufficient notice of claim).
AFFIRMED.