explaining that “proper exhaustion” under § 1997e(a) requires inmates to complete “all steps that the agency holds out” and to follow administrative procedural rules
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “proper exhaustion” under § 1997e(a) requires inmates to complete “all steps that the agency holds out” and to follow administrative procedural rules
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES N. BROWN, No. 08-35809
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-CV-00637-BR
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOHN REX, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Charles N. Brown, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
PDM/Research
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 the action because Brown did not
complete the administrative appeals process in accordance with the administrative
procedural rules or demonstrate that he was obstructed from doing so. See
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (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); see also McKinney v. Carey, 311
F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring inmates to exhaust
administrative remedies prior to filing suit in federal court).
We will not consider documents presented for the first time on appeal. See
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining that
documents not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal).
Brown’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
PDM/Research 2 08-35809