FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARNELL GRIFFIN, No. 11-16561
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00420-BMK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
NOLAN ESPINDA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Barry M. Kurren, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted June 26, 2012 ***
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Hawaii state prisoner Darnell Griffin appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
deliberately indifferent to his safety and health. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to
exhaust, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Griffin’s action because he failed to
exhaust administrative remedies. 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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering defendants’
motion to dismiss despite the fact that it was filed outside the time limits set by the
scheduling order and the local rules. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v.
Hercules, 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing the district court’s
“inherent authority to control its dockets”).
Griffin’s remaining contentions, including those concerning equitable
estoppel, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16561