MEMORANDUM ***

Edward Thomas, 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. *628 § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s application of substantive law, and for clear error its factual determinations, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court did not clearly err by deciding disputed issues of fact in favor of defendants and finding that Thomas was not prevented from filing grievances. See id. at 1119-20 (“In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed issues of fact.”). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the action because Thomas failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Wood-ford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” under § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

AFFIRMED.