Kanay Mubita v. Latah County Jailers;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KANAY MUBITA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LATAH COUNTY JAILERS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35965
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00062-EJL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kanay Mubita, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations
in connection with the conditions of his confinement and medical treatment in
FILED
FEB 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-35965 2
Latah County Jail. 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 Mubita’s action because he failed to
exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that he was excused from doing so.
See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper
exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural
rules).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mubita’s request
for appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate extraordinary
circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting
forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).
Mubita’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Mubita’s motion for leave to file exhibits in support of his Reply Brief is
granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --