Case Name: Chester Ray WISEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John SEBOK, Correctional Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-23
Citations: 543 F. App'x 694
Docket Number: No. 12-56245
Parties: Chester Ray WISEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John SEBOK, Correctional Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 694–694

Head Matter:
Chester Ray WISEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John SEBOK, Correctional Sergeant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-56245.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
Filed Oct. 23, 2013.
Chester Ray Wiseman, Delano, CA, pro se.
Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (SAC), Sacramento, CA, Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, 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 Chester Ray Wiseman appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants transferred him in retaliation for his legal filings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, 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 Wiseman's action without prejudice because Wiseman did not exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning his claim and failed to show that exhaustion' was effectively unavailable. 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); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 (dismissal for failure to exhaust is without prejudice); cf. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010) (excusing prisoner's failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.