Case Name: John E. BARNHOUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold CLARK; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-09
Citations: 474 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 10-35602
Parties: John E. BARNHOUSE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Harold CLARK; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
John E. BARNHOUSE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Harold CLARK; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-35602.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 9, 2012.
John E. Barnhouse, Irondale, WA, pro se.
Andrea Vingo, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Former Washington state prisoner John E. Barnhouse appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust 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 with prejudice because Barn-house did not timely exhaust his prison 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).
Barnhouse's remaining contentions, including those that this court rejected in a prior appeal, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.