Steve Alan Mahoney v. Pierce County Jail;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
STEVE ALAN MAHONEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PIERCE COUNTY JAIL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35321
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05238-BHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Steve Alan Mahoney appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his
health while he was a pretrial detainee at the Pierce County Jail. We have
FILED
JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-35321 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and for clear error its factual determinations.
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Mahoney did not
timely exhaust his administrative grievance remedies. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely
manner consistent with prison policies).
Mahoney’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellee’s motion to strike portions of Mahoney’s opening brief and
appendix is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --