FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH RUBEN BRIDGEWATER, No. 10-15795
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02511-FCD-
CMK
v.
LOCKART, Facility Sergeant; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Keith Ruben Bridgewater, 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, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,
1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
compel discovery, Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bridgewater’s action because he failed
to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that he was excused from doing
so. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper
exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural
rules); see also Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming
dismissal for failure to exhaust prison remedies where inmate’s grievance failed to
“alert[ ] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress [was] sought”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bridgewater’s
motions to compel discovery. See Hallett, 296 F.3d at 751 (trial court’s broad
discretion to deny discovery “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest
showing that [the] denial of discovery result[ed] in actual and substantial prejudice
to the complaining litigant”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Bridgewater’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15795