DAVID JOHNSON V. R. SUBIA, No. 11-15020 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID B. JOHNSON, No. 11-15020 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02002-PMPGWF v. R. J. SUBIA, Acting Warden, Mule Creek State Prison; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÃ N, O SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner David B. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials retaliated against him for filing prison grievances. We review de novo the * 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). district court s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and for clear error its factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Johnson s retaliation claims concerning an alleged false disciplinary charge and the destruction of his inmate grievance because Johnson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 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). Johnson s contentions concerning the district court s alleged denial of his due process and equal protection rights are unpersuasive. Johnson s request to stop deducting funds from his prison account for the filing fees in this and other unrelated actions, set forth in his letter submitted on July 13, 2012, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 11-15020

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.