Woodford
Clark v. Woodford
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Douglas Daniel Clark, a California state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the dismissal of defendant Pierce for lack of service, and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. *241 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) (“PLRA”), amended § 1997e(a) to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Clark was thus required to exhaust all of the administrative remedies available to him in the California prison system, “irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues,” before he could pursue his § 1983 claim in federal court. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 , 121 S.Ct. 1819 , 1825 n. 6, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).