With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Askia S. Ashanti appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging grooming policies enforced at various California prisons violated his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s determination that a prisoner failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, and review for clear error its findings of fact. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling because Ashanti failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing his original complaint. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Ashanti’s remaining contentions are

A: holding that 42 usc  1997ea requires dismissal without prejudice where a prisoner has not exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit
B: holding that 42 usc  1997ea requires prisoners to exhaust a process and not a remedy
C: holding that dismissal under 42 usc  1997ea was required even though case had gone to trial as inmate had failed to exhaust administrative remedies
D: holding that the prisoner has the burden of demonstrating he has exhausted his administrative remedies in his complaint
A.