Gerald Reynolds, Jr. v. G. Starcevich ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERALD REYNOLDS, Jr., No. 12-15662
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00326-GEB-
CMK
v.
G. STARCEVICH, Dr.; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Gerald Reynolds, Jr., appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Reynolds’s action because Reynolds
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory
and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); McKinney v. Carey,
311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion of
administrative remedies prior to filing suit).
To the extent that Reynolds alleges that defendants violated his
constitutional rights in the processing of his grievance, he fails to state a claim
because Reynolds has no constitutional right to a specific prison grievance
procedure. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-15662