FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 04 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFRED R. SOSA, No. 15-15284
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00283-WHO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
M. C. SAYRE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Horsley Orrick III, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 2, 2018**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alfred Sosa, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
retaliation, and denial of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s legal rulings on exhaustion.
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sosa’s deliberate indifference claim
and properly granted summary judgment on Sosa’s retaliation and access-to-court
claims against defendant Torrance because Sosa did not properly 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, 90 (2006)
(“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . means using all steps that the
agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on
the merits).” (emphasis in original) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 824 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding grievance
regarding medical treatment “would not have sufficed to exhaust . . . claim . . . for
improper screening of his administrative appeals”); see also Ross v. Blake, 136 S.
Ct. 1850, 1859-60 (2016) (outlining circumstances when administrative remedies
are unavailable).
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. 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.”).
2 15-15284
We reject as unsupported Sosa’s contentions regarding alleged
misrepresentations, discovery requests, and reconsideration.
In light of this disposition, we do not consider the merits of Sosa’s claims.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15284