M atthew C at e i s s ub st i tut ed for hi s pre dece ss or, Jam es T i l t on , as * S ec re t ary, pu rs uantt o F ed. R . A pp . P . 43 (c )( 2).

T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt ** e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). P D M / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T FRA N CO I S PO I TI ER G I V EN S, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M A T T H E W C A T E , S e c r e ta ry , C a lif o rn ia * D e pa rtm e ntof

C orr e c t i ons a nd R e h ab ilita tio n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 16843 D. C . No . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 3 5 7 5 - MHP ME MOR AN DU M **

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a r i l y n H . P a t e l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 *** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED JAN 11 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSP D M / Res ea r ch 08- 16843 2 F ran co i s P o i t i er G i v en s, a fo rm er C al i fo rn i a st at e p ri so n er, ap p eal s p ro se f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on f or fa i l ure t o exh austadm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es pu rs uantt o the P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A c t, 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to e x h au s t, W

yat t v. T e rhune , 31 5 F . 3d 11 08 , 11 17 (9th C i r. 20 03 ), re vi ew for c l ear e rr or i t s f ac tual d e te rm in a tio n s , id ., a n dr e v ie w f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n its d e n ia l o f

le a v e to a m e n d , R o b e r ts v . A r iz . B d. o f R eg e n ts , 6 6 1 F .2 d7 9 6 , 7 9 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) , a n dits d e n ia l o f am o tio n f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n , Mi nn . Mut . L i f e I ns. C o. v. E nsley , 174 F . 3d 9 7 7 , 9 8 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d the a c t i on be c aus e G i ve ns di d not co m p lete th e a d m in istrativ e ap p ea ls p ro ce ss in ac co rd an ce w ith th e p riso n ’s p r o c e d u r a l ru le s . Se e W oodf ord v . N go , 54 8 U . S . 81 , 90 -91 (20 06 ) ( expl ai ni ng that

“ prop erexhaust i on ” und er§ 1 99 7e(a ) r equi re s i nm at es t o com pl et e “ al l st eps that th e a g e n c yh o ld s o u t” a n dto f o llo w a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e du r a l ru le s ) ; s e e al s o C a l. C o d e R e g s . tit. 1 5 , § 3 0 8 4 .5 ( a ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng G i ve ns ’ s m ot i on f or l eave t o fi l e an am ended com pl ai nt , because f urther am endm entw ou l d h ave been f u tile in lig h t o f

G iv e n s ’s f

a ilu r e to e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . C f. Ca s w e llP D M / Res ea r ch 08- 16843 3 v . Calde r on , 36 3 F . 3d 83 2, 83 7 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( af fi rm i ng di stri ctcourt ’ s order d e n y in g le a v e to a m e n dh ab e a s p e titio n w h e r e p e titio n e r ’s f a ilu r e to e x h au s t s ta te re m edi es re nd er ed am endm entfut i l e) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g G iv e n s ’s m o tio n to re consi der because he di d n otpres entnew l y di sc ov er ed evi dence, i nd i ca t e a change i n con trol l i ng l aw , or dem on stra t e thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed cl ear e rr o ro rm a d e am a n if

e s tlyu n ju s t d e c is io n . Se e Sc hool D is t. N o. 1J , Mul tnom ah C ou nt y, O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F .3 d1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( s e ttin g f o rth e le m e n ts f

o rr e c o n s id e r a tio n u n d e rf e d e r a l ru le s ) ; s e e al

s o N . D is t. o f

C a l. C iv il L ocal R ul e 7-9 (r egar di ng re consi dera t i on ). B e c au s e w e w ill n o t c o n s id e re v id e n c e p r e s e n te df o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, G iv e n s ’s r e q u e s t to lo d g e ad o c u m e n t is d e n ie d . Se e U ni te d States v . E l i as , 921 F . 2d 870, 874 ( 9th C i r . 1990) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tdoc um e nt s notpr e s e nt e d t o the di stri ctcourtar e notpartof the re cord on appeal ). G iv e n s ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . AF F I RME D.