Morris Rodgers v. Ruben Reynaga;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Sitting by designation.**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MORRIS RODGERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RUBEN REYNAGA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17161
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01083-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding **
Submitted August 10, 2010***
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Morris Rodgers, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
FILED
AUG 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-17161 2
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and its factual determinations for
clear error, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
Contrary to Rodgers’s contentions, the district court did not clearly err by
resolving disputed issues of fact in favor of defendants. See id. at 1119-20 (“In
deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court
may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.”). Accordingly,
the district court properly dismissed the action because Rodgers failed to exhaust
administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-
95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is
mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).
Rodgers’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --