Peel
Mario Williams v. Peel
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Mario A. Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his back injuries and related pain. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action, without prejudice, because Williams failed timely 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) (“proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1119-20 (“[Djefendants have the burden of ... proving the absence of exhaustion[,]” and “[i]n deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.”).
The district court properly denied Williams’ motion for summary judgment as moot in light of its dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.