Case ID: f-appx_389/html/0624-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kevin Anthony PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pavon BARON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-16935.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 22, 2010.
    Kevin Anthony Parks, Florence, AZ, pro se.
    Wanda Ellen-Marie Hoffman, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument and therefore denies Parks’s request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kevin Anthony Parks, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 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 Parks’s action because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

Parks’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Parks’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (requiring “exceptional circumstances” for the appointment of counsel).

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