Darrin Armstrong v. Larry Small , 517 F. App'x 546 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRIN L. ARMSTRONG, No. 11-57229
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00401-WQH-
WVG
v.
LARRY SMALL, Warden, Former MEMORANDUM *
Warden, CDCR; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013 **
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Darrin L. Armstrong appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference and negligence in connection with a prison riot. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and for clear error its factual
determinations. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Armstrong’s action for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies because Armstrong did not raise in his grievance
the claims that he now raises in this action. See Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 946
(9th Cir. 2010) (“‘[W]hen a prison’s grievance procedures are silent or incomplete
as to factual specificity, a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of
the wrong for which redress is sought.’” (citation omitted)); Wright v. State, 122
Cal. App. 4th 659, 665 (2004) (both federal and state law require that inmates
exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit).
Armstrong’s contentions concerning whether he had to exhaust, even though
damages were unavailable through the administrative process, and the district
court’s alleged violation of his right to “Fair Notice,” are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-57229