¶1MEMORANDUM
¶2D. Harris, a former detainee at the Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de *636novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
¶3The district court properly dismissed the action because Harris did not properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining that “proper exhaustion” requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). Further, Harris failed to show that he was prevented from exhausting.
¶4AFFIRMED.
¶5 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.