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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MALIK JONES, No. 11-17348 Plaintiff -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