Opinion
No. 07-16735.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 30, 2009.
Carlos Hendon, Represa, CA, pro se. Barry Alves, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-01061-GEB/JFM.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Carlos Hendon, 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 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Hendon did not properly exhaust prison grievance procedures prior to filing suit in federal court. See Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that an inmate must bring a timely administrative appeal in order to properly exhaust administrative remedies); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (holding that exhaustion under § 1997e(a) must occur prior to commencement of the action).
Hendon's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.