Case Name: David Wayne WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. WANN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-05
Citations: 369 F. App'x 841
Docket Number: No. 08-17633
Parties: David Wayne WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. WANN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 841–841

Head Matter:
David Wayne WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. WANN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-17633.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 5, 2010.
David Wayne Wilson, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David Wayne Wilson, 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 pursuant to 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 Wilson's claims under the First and Eighth Amendments because he did not complete the administrative appeals process in accordance with the administrative procedural rules, and failed to demonstrate that he was obstructed from doing so. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining that "proper exhaustion" under § 1997e(a) requires inmates to complete "all steps that the agency holds out" and to follow administrative procedural rules).
We do not reach the contention by ap-pellee property officer Wann that this appeal is also barred under the three-strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and we deny as moot Wann's related request for judicial notice.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.