Geoffrey Wilson v. James Tilton
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Former California state prisoner Geoffrey Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among other things, violations of his constitutional right to adequate dental care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for clear error any underlying factual findings. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Farber-Szekreni, Kuykendall, and Ashley without prejudice because Wilson failed properly to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit, and he failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 826 (9th Cir.2010) (administrative remedies are “available” where administrative appeals are screened for proper reasons).