Case Name: Quillie L. HARVEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-04
Citations: 418 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 10-15208
Parties: Quillie L. HARVEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 418
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
Quillie L. HARVEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-15208.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 4, 2011.
Quillie L. Harvey, Jr., Wasco, CA, pro se.
Kenneth T. Roost, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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
California state prisoner Quillie L. Harvey, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action 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 Harvey's deliberate indifference claim against defendants Mendez, Rodriguez, and Ippolito because Harvey did not properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court, and failed to show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining that "proper exhaustion" requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir.2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are "effectively unavailable" because of improper screening of grievances).
Harvey's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.