Rodney E. Davis v. S. Crawford;

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).
PDM/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY E. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
S. CRAWFORD; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-15886
D.C. No. 2:06-CV-01425-KJD-RJJ
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Rodney E. Davis, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust
FILED
MAR 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PDM/Research 08-15886 2
administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its
factual determinations, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Davis did not
complete the Nevada Department of Corrections prison grievance process prior to
filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper
exhaustion” under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to
administrative procedural rules); see also Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117,
1120-21 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that inmate grievance cannot serve to exhaust
administrative remedies where it fails to “‘alert[ ] the prison to the nature of the
wrong for which redress is sought’”) (citation omitted).
Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --