Cohea

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Danny James Cohea appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

*476 The district court properly dismissed the action because Cohea made no attempt to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 520 , 122 S.Ct. 983 , 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (holding that PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies); see also Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining that “proper exhaustion” requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). Further, Cohea failed to show that he was prevented from exhausting.

Cohea’s pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.