Manuel Antonio Gonzalez, Iii v. T. Mason;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
T. MASON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16440
D.C. No. 3:07-CV-00180-SI
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 20, 2009**
Before: SKOPIL, LEAVY, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Antonio Gonzalez III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. We affirm.
FILED
DEC 04 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Gonzales submitted documents on appeal that were not part of the1
record below. Appellees’ motion to strike those documents from the record on
appeal is granted.
2
DISCUSSION
The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires that a
prisoner exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a federal action
concerning prison conditions. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir.
2009). The exhaustion must be “proper,” meaning that all steps the prison requires
must be satisfied. Id.
We agree with the district court that Gonzalez failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Moreover, the district court did not clearly err in finding
that Gonzalez was not prevented from filing prison grievances. See Wyatt v.
Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In deciding a motion to dismiss
for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may . . . decide disputed
issues of fact.”). Finally, there is no merit to Gonzalez’s contention that he
exhausted his claims because prison officials otherwise had “notice” of his
complaints. See Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting
prisoners must “complete the administrative review process in accordance with the
applicable procedural rules”) (quoting Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006)).
AFFIRMED.1

-- 2 of 2 --