Leonard Neely v. B. Adams
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Leonard Neely appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, 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 the action because Neely did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (holding that exhaustion under § 1997e(a) must occur prior to commencement of the action); see also Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir.2008) (noting that “proper exhaustion” requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). Further, Neely’s conclusory pleadings and submissions opposing the motion to dismiss were insufficient to show that prison officials frustrated his ability to grieve.