Case Name: Rodney L. GARROTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael G. LeFRANCIS, Corrections Officer, King County Dept. of Adult Detention; King County, DefendantsAppellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-02
Citations: 507 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 10-35358
Parties: Rodney L. GARROTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael G. LeFRANCIS, Corrections Officer, King County Dept. of Adult Detention; King County, DefendantsAppellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 507
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Rodney L. GARROTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael G. LeFRANCIS, Corrections Officer, King County Dept. of Adult Detention; King County, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 10-35358.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Jan. 2, 2013.
Rodney L. Garrott, Seattle, WA, pro se.
John R. Zeldenrust, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Washington state prisoner Rodney L. Garrott appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force against him while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust and for clear error any underlying factual findings. Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Garrott's action without prejudice because Garrott failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006)(requiring proper and timely exhaustion of prisoner claims). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Garrott failed to pursue all levels of administrative grievances available to him. Cf. Sapp, 623 F.3d at 822-23 (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are rendered "effectively unavailable").
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Garrott's motion for reconsideration because Garrott failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993)(reviewing for an abuse of discretion and setting forth requirements for reconsideration).
We do not intend this disposition to be used to foreclose any argument Garrott may raise, or to limit any potential relief to which Garrott may be entitled, in Garrott's related action, Garrott v. Stewart, No. 11-35849, 507 Fed.Appx. 680 which alleges that defendants violated Garrott's constitutional rights by actively interfering with his ability to litigate this action.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.