Ricardo Cruz v. MATTHEW CATE, Secretary ; et al.

Matthew Cate is substituted for his predecessor as Secretary of the*
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, pursuant to Fed. R. App.
P. 32(c)(2).
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICARDO CRUZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, Secretary ; et al.,*
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15149
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00289-ALA
MEMORANDUM **
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Arthur L. Alarcón, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010***
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PDM/Research 09-15149 2
Ricardo Cruz, 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 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 the action because Cruz’s failure to
submit an inmate grievance within the fifteen-working-day deadline did not
constitute proper exhaustion. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84, 95 (2006)
(holding that “proper exhaustion” under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and cannot be
satisfied “by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative
grievance”); see also Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(c) (providing that an inmate
must submit an administrative appeal within fifteen working days of the event
being grieved or the decision being appealed).
Cruz’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We construe Cruz’s Petition for Rehearing as a supplemental brief.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --