FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL LOUIS BEATTIE, No. 15-55034
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01448-H-JMA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. ROMERO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Michael Louis Beattie, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and
Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment for failure to
*
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).
exhaust administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th
Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even
accepting Beattie’s contention that he delivered the required form to a prison
officer on January 15, 2014 to be mailed, Beattie failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, and he did not show that administrative remedies were
effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 90-91
(2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and “demands compliance
with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules”); Sapp v. Kimbrell,
623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances
where exhaustion might be excused).
Beattie’s requests, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-55034