Case Name: Danny James COHEA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. JONES; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-26
Citations: 331 F. App'x 475
Docket Number: No. 08-15589
Parties: Danny James COHEA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. JONES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 475–476

Head Matter:
Danny James COHEA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. JONES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-15589.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2009 .
Filed May 26, 2009.
James Flynn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (Sac), Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, 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 Danny James Cohea appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Cohea made no attempt to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (holding that PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining that "proper exhaustion" requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). Further, Cohea failed to show that he was prevented from exhausting.
Cohea's pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.