Daniel Harper v. Nelson, No. 10-15083 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL HARPER, No. 10-15083 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02131-MCEEFB v. NELSON, Correctional Officer, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2010 ** Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Daniel Harper 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 under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Harper s action because he did not complete the prison grievance process as to any relevant grievance before filing suit in federal court. See Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal for failure to exhaust prison remedies where inmate s grievance failed to alert[] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress [was] sought ); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (exhaustion under § 1997e(a) must occur prior to commencement of the action). Further, Harper failed to show that additional remedies were unavailable to him. Harper s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Harper s pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 10-15083

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.