David Perryman v. San Francisco Sheriff Depart. , 510 F. App'x 504 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID S. PERRYMAN, No. 12-16199
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04973-TEH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David S. Perryman appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
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).
district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for
clear error its factual determinations, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th
Cir. 2003), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Perryman’s action because Perryman
did not properly exhaust administrative remedies. 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). The district court did not clearly err
in finding that Perryman’s submission of a grievance to the captain did not exhaust
Perryman’s administrative remedies. See Marella v. Terhune, 568 F.3d 1024, 1027
(9th Cir. 2009) (noting that prisoners must “complete the administrative review
process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules”) (quoting Woodford,
548 U.S. at 88)).
We do not consider matters not distinctly raised and argued in the opening
brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-16199