Dwayne Lucas v. A. K. SCRIBNER, Warden;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DWAYNE LUCAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
A. K. SCRIBNER, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17494
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00521-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William Haskell Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Dwayne Lucas appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
FILED
MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17494 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). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lucas’s action because Lucas did not
properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint, and failed to
show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (explaining that “proper exhaustion”
requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also Sapp v. Kimbrell,
623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not required where administrative
remedies are “effectively unavailable” because of improper screening of
grievances).
Lucas’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --