Case ID: f-appx_519/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tony Edward POWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. SMITH, Warden; McFadden, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17551.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 22, 2013.
    Tony Edward Powell, Atwater, CA, pro se.
    Benjamin Eli Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Tony Edward Powell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging that defendants subjected him to inhumane living conditions during a prison lockdown. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and for clear error the district court’s underlying factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Powell’s action because Powell did not timely exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning his claim. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a complaint; exhaustion during the course of litigation is not sufficient).

Powell’s motion for leave to file supplemental materials, filed on March 22, 2013, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.