Villacres v. Mueller
This text of 41 F. App'x 996 (Villacres v. Mueller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Charles Villacres, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison conditions violated his Eighth Amendment rights and that he was denied access to the courts because his cell lacked a desk area. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.
Villacres admitted in his complaint that he never filed a grievance with prison officials regarding his claims. The district court, therefore, properly dismissed his action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
41 F. App'x 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villacres-v-mueller-ca9-2002.