From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Roe

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 15, 2003
73 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


73 Fed.Appx. 263 (9th Cir. 2003) David W. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ernie ROE, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 03-55245. D.C. No. CV-02-04615-DDP. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 15, 2003

Submitted August 11, 2003.

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

California state prisoner David W. Wilson appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies Wilson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1177 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wilson's action because Wilson's own submissions

Page 264.

demonstrate that he failed to exhaust prison administrative remedies prior to filing his complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam).

Wilson's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Wilson v. Roe

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 15, 2003
73 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

Wilson v. Roe

Case Details

Full title:David W. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ernie ROE, Warden; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 15, 2003

Citations

73 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2003)