RISENHOOVER v. SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

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. 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, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (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.