Rodney Davis v. S. Crawford

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 26 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RODNEY E. DAVIS, No. 08-15886 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-CV-01425-KJD-RJJ v. MEMORANDUM * S. CRAWFORD; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2010 ** Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Rodney E. Davis, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust * 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). PDM/Research administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because Davis did not complete the Nevada Department of Corrections prison grievance process prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that inmate grievance cannot serve to exhaust administrative remedies where it fails to “‘alert[ ] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought’”) (citation omitted). Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. PDM/Research 2 08-15886