Case Name: James Morris JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PALACIOS, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 361 F. App'x 902
Docket Number: No. 08-56869
Parties: James Morris JACKSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. PALACIOS, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 902–903

Head Matter:
James Morris JACKSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. PALACIOS, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 08-56869.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
James Morris Jackson, Represa, CA, pro se.
Michelle Des Jardins, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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 Morris Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Jackson's failure to submit an appeal within the fifteen-working-day deadline did not constitute proper exhaustion. See Woodford, v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84, 95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that "proper exhaustion" under 42 U.S.C. § 1997 is mandatory and cannot be satisfied "by filing an untimely or otherwise proeedurally defective administrative grievance or appeal"); see also Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(c) (providing that an inmate must submit an administrative appeal within fifteen working days of the event or decision being appealed).
Jackson'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.