Marcus L. Hudson v. B. TRANGO, Correctional Officer;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
PDM/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCUS L. HUDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
B. TRANGO, Correctional Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15510
D.C. No. 2:08-CV-01589-RLH-
VPC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Marcus L. Hudson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PDM/Research 09-15510 2
exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its
factual determinations, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hudson’s claims because he did not
complete the administrative appeals process in accordance with the administrative
procedural rules, and failed to demonstrate that he was obstructed from doing so.
See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006) (explaining that “proper
exhaustion” under § 1997e(a) requires inmates to complete “all steps that the
agency holds out” and to follow administrative procedural rules).
Hudson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --