Omar Villicana v. Orange County Sheriff’s Department;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
OMAR VILLICANA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56600
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00614-SVW-RZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Omar Villicana appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging the use of excessive force and the denial of
medical care while he was a pretrial detainee at the Orange County Jail. We have
FILED
MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56600 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 Villicana failed to
exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires
adherence to administrative procedural rules).
Villicana’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --