Rosenblum v. Mule Creek State Prison Medical Officials

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PHILLIP J. ROSENBLUM, No. 09-17555 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00764-GEB- DAD v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON MEMORANDUM * MEDICAL OFFICIALS; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Phillip J. Rosenblum, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), his 42 U.S.C. * 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). § 1983 action. 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 Rosenblum’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). Rosenblum’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 09-17555