Case Name: Askia S. ASHANTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOLSOM STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 229 F. App'x 518
Docket Number: No. 05-16644
Parties: Askia S. ASHANTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOLSOM STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 518–518

Head Matter:
Askia S. ASHANTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOLSOM STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-16644.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 24, 2007.
Askia S. Ashanti, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
William V. Cashdollar, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, 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 Askia S. Ashanti appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging grooming policies enforced at various California prisons violated his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's determination that a prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, and review for clear error its findings of fact. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling because Ashanti failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing his original complaint. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) requires dismissal without prejudice where a prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit).
Ashanti'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.