Case Name: Dwayne LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden; et al, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-06
Citations: 471 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 10-17494
Parties: Dwayne LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden; et al, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 588–588

Head Matter:
Dwayne LUCAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden; et al, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-17494.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed March 6, 2012.
Dwayne Lucas, Delano, CA, pro se.
Christopher J. Becker, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Dwayne Lucas appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lucas's action because Lucas did not properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint, and failed to show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining that "proper exhaustion" requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir.2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are "effectively unavailable" because of improper screening of grievances).
Lucas's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.