1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018 4 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 5 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LEON GONZALES-LONGORIA, No. 18-15777 AKA Jose Leon Gonzalez-Longoria, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01587-LJO-MJS Petitioner-Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* DENNIS MATTHEW WONG; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

8 Appeal from the United States District Court 9 for the Eastern District of California 10 Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding 12 Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

15 Federal prisoner Jose Leon Gonzales-Longoria appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 18 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Kildare v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

1 Saenz, 325 F. 3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (denial of mandamus); Barren v. 2 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 3 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

4 The district court properly dismissed Gonzalez-Longoria’s petition for writ of mandamus because Gonzalez-Longoria failed to show that there was “no other adequate remedy” available. Lowry v. Barhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (setting forth elements for mandamus relief).

9 AFFIRMED.