NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BILLY RAY O’NEAL, No. 12-15849
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:08-cv-04669-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; R.
REYMUNDO, Deputy Sheriff;
GORWOOD, Lt. Sheriff; CAMARRA,
Deputy Sheriff,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Billy Ray O’Neal appeals from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo,
Sapp v. Kimbrell, 628 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed O’Neal’s complaint because O’Neal
admits that he did not attempt to exhaust his administrative remedies as mandated
by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Booth
v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739-41 (2001) (holding that exhaustion of available
administrative remedies is mandatory under the PLRA). O’Neal’s contention that
his claim should be exempt from the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement fails because
there is no evidence that the jail’s grievance procedures were unavailable. Instead,
the evidence shows that O’Neal filed a citizen’s complaint—despite his fear of
retribution—and that he was represented by a lawyer who could have assisted him
with his grievance. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006).
AFFIRMED.
2