MALIK JONES V. MIKE EVANS, No. 11-17348 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MALIK JONES, No. 11-17348 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:07-cv-04277-CW v. MEMORANDUM * MIKE EVANS, Warden; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia Wilken, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Malik Jones appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference to safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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). We review de novo the district court s dismissal for failure to exhaust. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Jones s action because Jones did not properly exhaust administrative remedies, and failed to show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that proper exhaustion is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are effectively unavailable ); see also Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 684 (9th Cir. 2010) (fifteen-day filing period begins to run when the inmate has all the information he needs in order to file a grievance). AFFIRMED. 2 11-17348
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.
