Case Name: James L. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. COOKE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-28
Citations: 424 F. App'x 693
Docket Number: No. 10-15422
Parties: James L. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. B. COOKE, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 424
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
James L. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. B. COOKE, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 10-15422.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 28, 2011.
James Leroy Jefferson, San Diego, CA, pro se.
David E. Brice, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
James L. Jefferson, 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 under 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 for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jefferson's action because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that he was excused from doing so. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that "proper exhaustion" is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jefferson's requests for appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (setting forth standard of review and requiring "exceptional circumstances" for the appointment of counsel).
Jefferson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Jefferson's motion for appointment of counsel on appeal, attached to his Reply Brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.