Case ID: f-appx_372/html/0725-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rodney E. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. CRAWFORD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-15886.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    
      Filed March 26, 2010.
    Rodney E. Davis, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
    Jill Carol Davis, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodney E. Davis, a Nevada 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 the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 the action because Davis did not complete the Nevada Department of Corrections 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); see also Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir.2009) (concluding that inmate grievance cannot serve to exhaust administrative remedies where it fails to “ ‘alert[ ] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought’ ”) (citation omitted).

Davis’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.