Robert D. Riggs v. MACDONALD, Warden;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBERT D. RIGGS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MACDONALD, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35208
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00023-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Montana state prisoner Robert D. Riggs 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 as required by the Prison Litigation
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-35208 2
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust. Sapp v.
Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Riggs did not
exhaust prison grievance procedures and failed to demonstrate that prison officials’
failure to respond rendered exhaustion effectively unavailable. 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); Sapp, 623 F.3d at 822
(exhaustion is not required where administrative remedies are “effectively
unavailable”); Montana Department of Corrections Policy, Montana State Prison,
Section 3.3.3.V.D.4 (effective May 1, 2005) (allowing inmates to proceed to the
next administrative grievance level when prison staff fails to respond in a timely
manner).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --