Carroll v. Gricewich

328 F. App'x 479

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Footnotes

•

**

Arvie B. Carroll, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s application of substantive law de novo and its factual determinations for clear error, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly determined that Carroll’s July 2006 grievance was infirm because it did not put prison staff on notice of Carroll’s retaliation claim. See Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir.2009) (affirming dismissal for failure to exhaust prison remedies where inmate’s grievance failed to “alert[] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress [was] sought.”). The district court also properly concluded that Carroll did not fully exhaust his November 2006 grievance until after filing the instant action. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (requiring inmates to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit in federal court). Carroll’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.