Michael A. Risenhoover v. Salinas Valley State Prison;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. RISENHOOVER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16171
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00432-AWI-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael A. Risenhoover appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials failed to deliver his legal
mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nunez v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16171
Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1222 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Risenhoover’s action because
Risenhoover did not exhaust prison grievance procedures concerning his claims
and failed to show that exhaustion was effectively unavailable. 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); Nunez, 591 F.3d at 1224 (excusing
prisoner’s failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so).
We reject as without merit Risenhoover’s contention that the requirement to
exhaust prison grievances is unconstitutional. See Madrid v. Gomez, 190 F.3d 990,
996 (9th Cir. 1999) (the Prison Litigation Reform Act “certainly passes
constitutional muster”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --