Jeff Aidnik v. BILL RUSSELL, Supervisor Plant OP and SHAWN O’CONNER, Plant Manager

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFF AIDNIK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BILL RUSSELL, Supervisor Plant OP and
SHAWN O’CONNER, Plant Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16638
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01273-MCE-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jeff Aidnik, 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
JUL 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16638 2
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Aidnik conceded
that he failed to exhaust prison grievance procedures prior to filing suit. See Wyatt,
315 F.3d at 1120 (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for
dismissal . . . .”); see also Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001) (requiring
exhaustion of administrative remedies regardless of the type of relief sought);
McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring
exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing suit).
Aidnik’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --