Robert Dixon v. James Yates

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Robert James Dixon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Wyatt v. Terhune, 815 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to effectuate service, Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Dixon’s Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Igbinosa because Dixon failed properly to exhaust his administrative remedies. 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).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without prejudice the claims against defendant Diep because Dixon failed to effectuate service in a timely manner. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 days after complaint is filed); Walker v.…