Clarence E. Howard v. KAMEL, Dr.;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CLARENCE E. HOWARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KAMEL, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15308
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00988-OWW-
GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Clarence E. Howard 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 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15308 2
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Howard’s action because Howard did
not properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint, and failed
to show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” is
mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also
Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not required
where administrative remedies are “effectively unavailable” because of improper
screening of grievances).
Howard’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellees’ pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --