Case ID: f-appx_478/html/0440-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Darnell GRIFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nolan ESPINDA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16561.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 12, 2012.
    Darnell Griffin, Honolulu, HI, pro se.
    Miriam Pualani Loui, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.