NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SHAUNTAE TAYLOR, No. 12-57120
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09762-RGK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SUCHIL, in individual and official
capacity as Sheriff Deputy; RAMIREZ, in
individual capacity and official capacity as
Sheriff Deputy,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Shauntae Taylor appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
*
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).
used excessive force against him. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a), and for clear error the district court’s underlying factual
determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Taylor’s action without prejudice
because Taylor did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing
suit. 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). Moreover, Taylor failed to show that administrative remedies were
effectively unavailable to him. See Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir.
2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are “effectively
unavailable”).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-57120