Francis W. Davis v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANCIS W. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15705
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01171-OWW-
GBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Francis W. Davis appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, without prejudice, for
FILED
JUL 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15705 2
failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
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) (dismissal for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,
1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Davis’s action because it is clear from
the face of the complaint that Davis did not properly exhaust administrative
remedies before filing his complaint. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95
(2006) (“proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative
procedural rules); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 (“A prisoner’s concession to
nonexhaustion is a valid grounds for dismissal, so long as no exception to
exhaustion applies.”). Contrary to Davis’s contentions, prison officials properly
screened his appeal for failure to follow the procedural rules of the appeals process.
See Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (administrative remedies
are available where administrative appeals are screened for proper reasons).
Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Davis’s emergency motion regarding legal property, filed on April 14, 2011,
is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --