FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND NEWSOM, No. 13-15454
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00403-LJO-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN CHOKATOS, MD,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Raymond Newsom appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162,
*
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).
1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Newsom’s action because Newsom
failed properly to exhaust administrative remedies and failed to demonstrate that
administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory
and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Nunez v. Duncan, 591
F.3d 1217, 1224-26 (9th Cir. 2010) (where defendant establishes failure to exhaust,
burden shifts to plaintiff to prove that administrative remedies were unavailable to
him).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15454