Arthur T. Bussiere v. CANO, Correctional Counselor II;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CANO, Correctional Counselor II; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-15719
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00945-AWI-
DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Arthur T. Bussiere appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations arising from assaults on him by other inmates. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust
FILED
MAR 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

administrative remedies, and for clear error the district court’s factual findings.
Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bussiere’s claim against defendant
Lopez because Bussiere failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate
that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory
and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Morton, 599 F.3d at
946 (explaining that “a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the
wrong for which redress is sought,” and concluding that inmate grievance that did
not refer to an assault was insufficient to put prison officials on notice of prisoner’s
complaint about an assault) (citation and quotation marks omitted); cf. Sapp v.
Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822-23 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is not required where
administrative remedies are rendered “effectively unavailable”).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15719

-- 2 of 2 --