Sophanthavong

MEMORANDUM **

Somphalavanh Sophanthavong, a prisoner at the Oregon State Penitentiary, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a disciplinary order and sanction. The district court held that Sophanthavong’s claim that the underlying prison regulations are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad is barred because he did not assert that claim in the administrative process. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

*462 DISCUSSION

The district court ruled that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), mandates dismissal of any unexhausted claim brought by prisoners against prison officials. We agree. The Supreme Court has held that the exhaustion requirement of § 1997e(a) is mandatory and applies even if the inmate is seeking relief that the administrative process cannot provide. See Booth v. C.O. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 734 , 121 S.Ct. 1819 , 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).

Sophanthavong argues that the exhaustion requirement should not apply to his constitutional claims because the prison does not provide for administrative review of such claims. We…