Case Name: Raymond NEWSOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John CHOKATOS, MD, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-04
Citations: 584 F. App'x 445
Docket Number: No. 13-15454
Parties: Raymond NEWSOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John CHOKATOS, MD, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 445–446

Head Matter:
Raymond NEWSOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John CHOKATOS, MD, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-15454.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed Aug. 4, 2014.
Raymond Newsom, pro se.
Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY and CALLAHAN, 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
California state prisoner Raymond Newsom appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing, for failure to exhaust his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir.2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Newsom's action because Newsom failed properly to exhaust administrative remedies and failed to demonstrate that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. 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); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26 (9th Cir.2010) (where defendant establishes failure to exhaust, burden shifts to plaintiff to prove that administrative remedies were unavailable to him).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.