Case ID: f-appx_313/html/0951-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christopher DUPREE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeanne WOODFORD, in her individual capacity; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 06-56446.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2009.
    Christopher DuPree, Delano, CA, pro se.
    Gerald S. Ohn, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Christopher DuPree, a California 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 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s order dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because DuPree did not complete the prison grievance process 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 § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that § 1997e(a) requires dismissal of a lawsuit when the plaintiff does not exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit).

DuPree’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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