
    Tracy Romero FOLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. ANCHETA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-17129.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 15, 2010.
    Tracy Romero Foley, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Jessica Devencenzi, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tracy Romero Foley, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, 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 Foley’s Eighth Amendment claim because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); 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.”).

Foley’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We reject Foley’s May 12, 2010, request to stay this appeal. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200-01 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (prisoner may not satisfy exhaustion requirement while federal action is pending, but dismissal is without prejudice to refiling federal action once exhaustion requirement is met).

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