Case ID: f-appx_478/html/0416-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Steve Alan MAHONEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PIERCE COUNTY JAIL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-35321.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 9, 2012.
    Steve Alan Mahoney, Port Orchard, WA, pro se.
    Daniel Hamilton, Tacoma, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steve Alan Mahoney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his health while he was a pretrial detainee at the Pierce 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 Mahoney did not timely exhaust his administrative grievance remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies).

Mahoney’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Appellee’s motion to strike portions of Mahoney’s opening brief and appendix is denied.

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