With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". California state prisoner Leonard Neely 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 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). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because Neely did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); see also Ngo v. Woodford, 539 F.3d 1108, 1109

A: holding that  1997ea requires proper exhaustion
B: holding that exhaustion under  1997ea must occur prior to commencement of the action
C: holding that proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary under section 1997ea
D: holding that proper exhaustion under 42 usc  1997ea is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules
B.