Jeff Aidnik v. Bill Russell , 389 F. App'x 623 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFF AIDNIK, No. 09-16638
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01273-MCE-
EFB
v.
BILL RUSSELL, Supervisor Plant OP and MEMORANDUM *
SHAWN O’CONNER, Plant Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jeff Aidnik, a California state prisoner, 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.
*
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).
§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Aidnik conceded
that he failed to exhaust prison grievance procedures prior to filing suit. See Wyatt,
315 F.3d at 1120 (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for
dismissal . . . .”); see also Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001) (requiring
exhaustion of administrative remedies regardless of the type of relief sought);
McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring
exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing suit).
Aidnik’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-16638