Villicana v. Orange County Sheriff's Department

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 06 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OMAR VILLICANA, No. 10-56600 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00614-SVW-RZ v. MEMORANDUM * ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Omar Villicana appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the use of excessive force and the denial of medical care while he was a pretrial detainee at the Orange County Jail. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), 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 the action because Villicana failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). Villicana’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 10-56600