Johnson v. Subia

Full title: DAVID B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R. J. SUBIA, Acting Warden…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 3, 2014

559 F. App'x 655 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

Submitted February 18, 2014 ^**

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02002-PMP-GWF. Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding.

DAVID B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Chowchilla, CA.

For R. L. HEISE, Jr., Sergeant, Mule Creek State Prison, C. CAMPBELL, Correctional Officer, Mule Creek State Prison, Defendants - Appellees: Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.

Before: ALARC§N, O'SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^*

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

California state prisoner David B. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials retaliated against him for filing prison grievances. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and for clear error its factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson's retaliation claims concerning an alleged false disciplinary charge and the destruction of his inmate grievance because Johnson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that " proper exhaustion" is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

Johnson's contentions concerning the district court's alleged denial of his due process and equal protection rights are unpersuasive.

Johnson's request to stop deducting funds from his prison account for the filing fees in this and other unrelated actions, set forth in his letter submitted on July 13, 2012, is denied.

AFFIRMED.