Case Name: D. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy BACA, Sheriff; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-28
Citations: 324 F. App'x 635
Docket Number: No. 05-56610
Parties: D. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy BACA, Sheriff; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 635–636

Head Matter:
D. HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leroy BACA, Sheriff; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-56610.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 28, 2009.
Stephen Yagman, Esq., Yagman & Yag-man & Reichmann, Venice Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jin S. Choi, Esq., Franscell Strickland, et al., Glendale, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
D. Harris, a former detainee at the Los Angeles County Men's Central 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 Harris 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, Harris 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.