Daniel Harper v. NELSON, Correctional Officer

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL HARPER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NELSON, Correctional Officer,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 10-15083
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02131-MCE-
EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Daniel Harper appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-15083 2
42 U.S.C. § 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). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Harper’s action because he did not
complete the prison grievance process as to any relevant grievance before filing
suit in federal court. See Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009)
(affirming dismissal for failure to exhaust prison remedies where inmate’s
grievance failed to “alert[] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress
[was] sought”); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per
curiam) (exhaustion under § 1997e(a) must occur prior to commencement of the
action). Further, Harper failed to show that additional remedies were unavailable
to him.
Harper’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Harper’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --