Case ID: f-appx_517/html/0546-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Darrin L. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry SMALL, Warden, Former Warden, CDCR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-57229.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 23, 2013.
    Darrin L. Armstrong, Imperial, CA, pro se.
    Stephen Alexander Aronis, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Darrin L. Armstrong appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and negligence in connection with a prison riot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and for clear error its factual determinations. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Armstrong’s action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Armstrong did not raise in his grievance the claims that he now raises in this action. See Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir.2010) (“‘[W]hen a prison’s grievance procedures are silent or incomplete as to factual specificity, a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.’ ” (citation omitted)); Wright v. State, 122 Cal.App.4th 659, 665, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 (2004) (both federal and state law require that inmates exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit).

Armstrong’s contentions concerning whether he had to exhaust, even though damages were unavailable through the administrative process, and the district court’s alleged violation of his right to “Fair Notice,” are unpersuasive.

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