Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0604-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Omar VILLICANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-56600.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 6, 2012.
    Omar Villicana, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
    Daniel Solomon Cha, Christina Marie Sprenger, Esquire, Senior, Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Omar Villicana appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the use of excessive force and the denial of medical care while he was a pretrial detainee at the Orange County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and for clear error its factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Villicana 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” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

Villicana’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.