Case Name: Jerry Lee COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. HARRINGTON, Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-04
Citations: 316 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 08-16467
Parties: Jerry Lee COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. HARRINGTON, Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
Jerry Lee COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. HARRINGTON, Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16467.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
Filed March 4, 2009.
Jerry Lee Cole, San Luis, AZ, pro se.
Jennifer A. Baker, Esquire, Eileen Dennis Gilbride, Esquire, Jones Skelton & Ho-chuli, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jerry Lee Cole, a former detainee at Maricopa County Jail, 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, 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 Cole did not properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court. See 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, Cole failed to show that he was prevented from exhausting.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.