Case Name: Anthony Albert JIMENEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank CARHUNAGAN and Sandra L. La Fon, substituted for El La Fon, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-29
Citations: 402 F. App'x 193
Docket Number: No. 08-55420
Parties: Anthony Albert JIMENEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank CARHUNAGAN and Sandra L. La Fon, substituted for El La Fon, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
Anthony Albert JIMENEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank CARHUNAGAN and Sandra L. La Fon, substituted for El La Fon, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-55420.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 29, 2010.
Anthony Albert Jimenez, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Paul J. Coony, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Jimenez's request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Anthony Albert Jimenez, 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 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 based on the failure to exhaust and review for clear error its factual findings. O'Guinn v. Lovelock Carr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
As a preliminary matter, we reject Ap-pellees' contention that we lack jurisdiction because Jimenez's notice of appeal was untimely. See Solis v. County of Los Angeles, 514 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining timeliness of appeal where judgment was not set forth on separate document as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a)); see also Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(7).
The district court properly dismissed the action because Jimenez did not properly exhaust the prison grievance process prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) ("proper exhaustion" under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 734, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) (inmate seeking only money damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of addressing inmate's complaint and providing some form of relief, even if the process does not provide for the recovery of monetary relief). We construe the dismissal of Jimenez's claims to be without prejudice. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissals for failure to exhaust administrative remedies are without prejudice).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.