Case ID: f-appx_470/html/0689-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stuart SANDROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHOE, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-56995.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed March 5, 2012.
    Stuart Sandrock, Norco, CA, pro se.
    Scott Wm. Davenport, Manning & Kass, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stuart Sandrock, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003) (dismissal for failure to exhaust); Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001) (Fed.R.Civ.P. § 12(b)(6) dismissal). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sandrock’s medical claims because Sandrock failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that he was prevented from exhausting his administrative remedies as to these claims. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

The district court properly dismissed Sandrock’s retaliation claims because, even assuming he exhausted these claims, Sandrock failed to connect the alleged acts of retaliation with the exercise of his First Amendment rights. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (setting forth the elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim).

Sandrock’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.