Case Name: Arnold J. FLEMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Craig LINDNER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-21
Citations: 245 F. App'x 672
Docket Number: No. 06-15275
Parties: Arnold J. FLEMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Craig LINDNER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 245
Pages: 672–673

Head Matter:
Arnold J. FLEMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. Craig LINDNER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-15275.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2007.
Filed Aug. 21, 2007.
Arnold J. Fleming, Indio, CA, pro se.
Jill Buttram Scally, Supervising Dag, Kevin William Reager, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Arnold J. Fleming 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. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice because Fleming failed to exhaust administrative remedies, regarding his request for immediate replacement of his dental plates, before filing a complaint in federal court. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires dismissal without prejudice where a prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies pri- or to filing suit). To the extent Fleming contends that he should be exempted from the exhaustion requirement, we are not persuaded. Cf. Booth v. Chumer, 532 U.S. 731, 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) ("[W]e will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements where Congress has provided otherwise.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.