John E. Barnhouse v. Harold Clark;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOHN E. BARNHOUSE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-35602
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05527-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Former Washington state prisoner John E. Barnhouse 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 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-35602 2
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 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). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action with prejudice because
Barnhouse did not timely exhaust his prison grievance remedies. 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).
Barnhouse’s remaining contentions, including those that this court rejected
in a prior appeal, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --