FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN LYLE ANDERSON, No. 10-16547
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00609-JWS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GREG FIZER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Brian Lyle Anderson, an Arizona 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. § 1291. We review de novo the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 Anderson’s action because he failed to
exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires
adherence to administrative procedural rules); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,
1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies
prior to filing suit).
We do not consider facts presented for the first time on appeal. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Anderson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-16547