Case Name: Marcus L. HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B. TRANGO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-11
Citations: 361 F. App'x 897
Docket Number: No. 09-15510
Parties: Marcus L. HUDSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. B. TRANGO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 897–897

Head Matter:
Marcus L. HUDSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. B. TRANGO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-15510.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 11, 2010.
Marcus L. Hudson, Represa, CA, pro se. Jessica Deveneenzi, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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
Marcus L. Hudson, 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 pursuant to 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hudson's claims 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).
Hudson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.