Pablo Pina v. C. Scavetta

MEMORANDUM

Pablo P. Pina, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from his indeterminate confinement in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 815 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Pina’s mail-related claims because Pina failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit; See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (concluding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies pri- or to filing suit); see also Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir.2010) (the Prison…