GARRETT v. FINANDER (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Craig Kaiser Garrett appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (legal rulings on exhaustion); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garrett's action because Garrett failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies in a timely manner as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See Ross v. Blake, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (proper administrative exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to suit); see also Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169 (where a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a district court may dismiss for failure to state a claim).

All pending requests are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.