Case Name: David B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.J. SUBIA, Acting Warden, Mule Creek State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-03
Citations: 559 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 11-15020
Parties: David B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.J. SUBIA, Acting Warden, Mule Creek State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
David B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R.J. SUBIA, Acting Warden, Mule Creek State Prison; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15020.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed March 3, 2014.
David B. Johnson, lone, CA, pro se.
Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner David B. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials retaliated against him for filing prison grievances. 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 Johnson's retaliation claims concerning an alleged false disciplinary charge and the destruction of his inmate grievance because Johnson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 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).
Johnson's contentions concerning the district court's alleged denial of his due process and equal protection rights are unpersuasive.
Johnson's request to stop deducting funds from his prison account for the filing fees in this and other unrelated actions, set forth in his letter submitted on July 13, 2012, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.