NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DONIMIC T. BROOKS, No. 13-17485
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00485-RCB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TODD THOMAS, Warden - Saguaro
Correctional Center; BENJAMIN
GRIEGO, Assistant Warden - Saguaro
Correction Center, named as Ben Griego,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Donimic T. Brooks, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants retaliated against him while he was
housed in Arizona. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Brooks failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as to the alleged retaliatory removal from the religious
program because Brooks did not exhaust his grievance to the final level of review
and he did not demonstrate that administrative remedies were effectively
unavailable to him. 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); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2010)
(describing limited circumstances under which administrative remedies are deemed
unavailable or exhaustion is excused). Moreover, Brooks failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as to the alleged retaliatory placement in administrative
segregation because he did not file a grievance regarding these allegations. See
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 93-95.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-17485