1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED 2 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018 4 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

5 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 6 JOSE LEON GONZALES-LONGORIA, No. 18-15777 AKA Jose Leon Gonzalez-Longoria, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01587-LJO-MJS Petitioner-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

DENNIS MATTHEW WONG; et al.,

Respondents-Appellees. 7 8 Appeal from the United States District Court 9 for the Eastern District of California 10 Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding 11 12 Submitted August 15, 2018** 13 14 Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

15 Federal prisoner Jose Leon Gonzales-Longoria appeals pro se from the

16 district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus. We have

17 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680

18 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Kildare v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 Saenz, 325 F. 3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (denial of mandamus); Barren v.

2 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28

3 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

4 The district court properly dismissed Gonzalez-Longoria’s petition for writ

5 of mandamus because Gonzalez-Longoria failed to show that there was “no other

6 adequate remedy” available. Lowry v. Barhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir.

7 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (setting forth elements for

8 mandamus relief).

9 AFFIRMED.

2