Albert Hayes v. W. ROSSER, Individual, employed as a 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT HAYES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
W. ROSSER, Individual, employed as a
correctional officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SULLIVAN, individual and official
capacity (first name unknown),
Defendant.
No. 09-56495
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02755-CJC-FFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 22, 2010**
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
FILED
NOV 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-56495 2
The district court did not clearly err by concluding that Albert Hayes
(“Hayes”) still had administrative remedies available to him once he received a
copy of the first-level response to his grievance. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15
§ 3085(b). Accordingly, dismissal of his action for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies was proper. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006)
(“proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires
adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d
1108, 1120 (9th Cir. 2003) (the proper remedy for non-exhaustion is dismissal
without prejudice).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hayes’s post-
judgment motion to correct the docket. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County,
Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 315 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (setting forth standard of review and
requirements for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --