Case Name: Carlos HENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. KNOWLES, Warden-CSP; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-30
Citations: 320 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 07-16735
Parties: Carlos HENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. KNOWLES, Warden-CSP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 727–727

Head Matter:
Carlos HENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. KNOWLES, Warden-CSP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-16735.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 30, 2009.
Carlos Hendon, Represa, CA, pro se.
Barry Alves, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Hendon, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of 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 because Hendon did not properly exhaust prison grievance procedures prior to filing suit in federal court. See Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 1109-10 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining that an inmate must bring a timely administrative appeal in order to properly exhaust administrative remedies); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (holding that exhaustion under § 1997e(a) must occur prior to commencement of the action).
Hendon's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.