Case Name: Michael James HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda NEAL, Program Director, Salinas Valley Psychiatric Program, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-30
Citations: 350 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 08-17086
Parties: Michael James HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda NEAL, Program Director, Salinas Valley Psychiatric Program, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
Michael James HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda NEAL, Program Director, Salinas Valley Psychiatric Program, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-17086.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 30, 2009.
Michael James Hicks, Represa, CA, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Michael James Hicks appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Hicks's failure to appeal his inmate grievance beyond the first level of review did not constitute proper exhaustion. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining that "proper exhaustion" requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also CaLCode Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.5 (setting forth the various levels of review in the administrative-grievance system for California inmates).
AFFIRJMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.