Case ID: f-appx_416/html/0628-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kanay MUBITA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LATAH COUNTY JAILERS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-35965.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2011.
    Kanay Mubita, Boise, ID, pro se.
    Sonyalee Nutsch, Clements, Brown & McNiehols, P.A., Lewiston, ID, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kanay Mubita, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the conditions of his confinement and medical treatment in Latah County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mubita’s action because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that he was excused from doing so. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, OS-OS, 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 by denying Mubita’s request for appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).

Mubita’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Mubita’s motion for leave to file exhibits in support of his Reply Brief is granted.

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