NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ERIC ANDREW O’DELL, No. 13-55702
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02181-WQH-
BGS
v.
JOHN MUNGER, Floor Officer; G. MEMORANDUM*
BADILLA, Floor Officer,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Eric Andrew O’Dell appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging excessive force and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010),
and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that O’Dell failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies because O’Dell did not exhaust his grievances to the final
level of review in a timely manner, or establish that he should be excused from the
exhaustion requirement. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006) (Prison
Litigation Reform Act requires “proper exhaustion,” which means completing the
administrative review process in compliance with all relevant deadlines and other
applicable procedural rules); Sapp, 623 F.3d at 818 (setting forth administrative
exhaustion process under relevant California regulations); Nunez v. Duncan, 591
F.3d 1217, 1224, 1226 (9th Cir. 2010) (where defendant establishes failure to
exhaust, burden shifts to plaintiff to prove that administrative remedies were
unavailable to him).
O’Dell’s contentions regarding defendants’ alleged misstatement of facts
and evidence, the district court’s alleged failure to review his arguments and
exhibits, and the allegedly erroneous dismissal of his damages claims against
defendants in their individual capacity, are unpersuasive.
2 13-55702
O’Dell’s request for “all proper, just and equitable relief available,” filed on
November 15, 2013, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-55702