NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DAVID A. JONES, No. 13-16967
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:12-cv-02946-LHK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
R. ROQUE; S. A. HANDLEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David A. Jones appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging sexual assault by prison guards. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo,
*
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).
775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Jones failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies because Jones did not exhaust his grievance to the final
level of review before filing this action and he did not demonstrate that
administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Sapp v. Kimbrell,
623 F.3d 813, 821-24 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that “proper” exhaustion is
mandatory and describing circumstances under which administrative remedies are
deemed unavailable or exhaustion is excused).
We reject Jones’s contention that administrative remedies were exhausted
when Jones fully exhausted a separate grievance after filing this lawsuit.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16967