Leonard Neely v. B. C. Adams

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LSS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEONARD NEELY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
B. C. ADAMS,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-16332
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00003-GEB-
CMK
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Leonard Neely appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, without prejudice, for
FILED
APR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LSS/Research 08-16332 2
failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 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 for
clear error its factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th
Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Neely did not
exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court. See
McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (holding that
exhaustion under § 1997e(a) must occur prior to commencement of the action); see
also Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that “proper
exhaustion” requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). Further,
Neely’s conclusory pleadings and submissions opposing the motion to dismiss
were insufficient to show that prison officials frustrated his ability to grieve.
Neely’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --