James Morris Jackson v. PALACIOS, Correctional Officer;

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).
PDM/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES MORRIS JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PALACIOS, Correctional Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56869
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-04466-R-E
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
James Morris Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PDM/Research 08-56869 2
administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 the action because Jackson’s failure to
submit an appeal within the fifteen-working-day deadline did not constitute proper
exhaustion. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84, 95 (2006) (holding that
“proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997 is mandatory and cannot be satisfied
“by filing an untimely or otherwise procedurally defective administrative grievance
or appeal”); see also Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3084.6(c) (providing that an inmate
must submit an administrative appeal within fifteen working days of the event or
decision being appealed).
Jackson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --