Case Name: James Marion SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. HENDRICK; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-14
Citations: 695 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 16-15620
Parties: James Marion SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. HENDRICK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 253–253

Head Matter:
James Marion SIMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. HENDRICK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15620
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 14, 2017
James Marion Sims, Pro Se
Sara D. Van Loh, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Sims’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James.Marion Sims, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sims did not properly exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning his claim or show that exhaustion was effectively unavailable. See Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ("[A] grievance [only] suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought."); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are rendered "effectively unavailable").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.