Case Name: Shauntae TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUCHIL, in individual and official capacity as Sheriff Deputy; Ramirez, in individual capacity and official capacity as Sheriff Deputy, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-28
Citations: 559 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 12-57120
Parties: Shauntae TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUCHIL, in individual and official capacity as Sheriff Deputy; Ramirez, in individual capacity and official capacity as Sheriff Deputy, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Shauntae TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUCHIL, in individual and official capacity as Sheriff Deputy; Ramirez, in individual capacity and official capacity as Sheriff Deputy, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-57120.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 28, 2014.
Shauntae Taylor, Delano, CA, pro se.
Julie Fleming, Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez, Trester LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
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 Shauntae Taylor appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants used excessive force against him. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and for clear error the district court's underlying factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Taylor's action without prejudice because Taylor did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 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). Moreover, Taylor failed to show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir.2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are "effectively unavailable").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.