Kevin Anthony Parks v. Pavon Baron;

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 and therefore denies Parks’s request for oral argument. See
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN ANTHONY PARKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PAVON BARON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16935
D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00216-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Anthony Parks, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16935 2
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 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 Parks’s action because he failed to
exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural
rules).
Parks’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Parks’s request for appointment of counsel is denied. See Terrell v. Brewer,
935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (requiring “exceptional circumstances” for the
appointment of counsel).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --