Case Name: Carlos HENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAROYA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-30
Citations: 320 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 08-15489
Parties: Carlos HENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAROYA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 717–717

Head Matter:
Carlos HENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BAROYA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-15489.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 30, 2009.
Carlos Hendon, Represa, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Diana Esquivel, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Hendon, 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 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's determination that a prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, and review for clear error its findings of fact. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Hendon failed to submit any evidence demonstrating that he properly exhausted prison grievance procedures. See id. at 1119-20 (explaining that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is subject to an unenumerated Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b) motion, and the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact).
Hendon'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.