Case Name: Clarence E. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAMEL, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-12
Citations: 474 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 11-15308
Parties: Clarence E. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAMEL, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
Clarence E. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAMEL, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15308.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 12, 2012.
Clarence Eugene Howard, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Lakeysia Rene Beene, Martha M. Stringer, Kathleen Jane Williams, Williams & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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 Clarence E. Howard appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Howard's action because Howard did not properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint, and failed to show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) ("proper exhaustion" is mandatory and 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).
Howard's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellees' pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.