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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 28 2011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
JAMES L. JEFFERSON, No. 10-15422
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00723-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
B. COOKE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding **
Submitted March 8, 2011 ***
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
James L. Jefferson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable David G. Campbell, United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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
district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, 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 Jefferson’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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jefferson’s requests
for appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate extraordinary
circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting
forth standard of review and requiring “exceptional circumstances” for the
appointment of counsel).
Jefferson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Jefferson’s motion for appointment of counsel on appeal, attached to his
Reply Brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15422