Case Name: Terry ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-01
Citations: 679 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 15-55741
Parties: Terry ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 679
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
Terry ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55741
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed March 1, 2017
Terry Alexander, Pro Se
Elise Hur, Attorney, Nelson & Fulton, Henry Patrick Nelson, Esquire, Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee J. Bleau
Elise Hur, Attorney, Nelson & Fulton, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Zasorin
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Terry Alexander appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Alexander's claims related to (1) the failure to approve him as a wheelchair user, and (2) the denial of a wheelchair and a cell complaint with the Americans with Disabilities Act while in solitary confinement, because Alexander failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted administrative remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) ("[Pjroper 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, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); Williams, 775 F.3d at 1191 (a prisoner who does not exhaust administrative remedies must show that "there is something particular in his case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.... ").
We reject as meritless Alexander's contentions that the district court did not properly manage the discovery process and failed to take judicial notice of non-party inmates' assertions.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.