Tony Saffold v. T. Reynolds

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Tony Eugene Saffold appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and a dismissal for failure to exhaust, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Saffold’s failure-to-protect claim because Saffold failed to exhaust administrative remedies in a proper manner. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Sapp, 623 F.3d at 825 (“[A]n inmate must first present a complaint at the first level of the administrative process.”). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Saffold failed to give prison officials notice of his failure-to-protect claim. See Sapp, 623 F.3d at 821 (reviewing…