Opinion
No. 09-55647.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 4, 2010.
Raymond Gonzalez, Imperial, CA, pro se.
Susan E. Coleman, Esquire, L. Trevor Grimm, Esquire, David J. Wilson, Manning Marder Kass Ellrod Ramirez LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Central District of California, David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 5:07-cv-01463-DOCMLG.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Raymond Gonzalez ("Gonzalez") failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) ("proper exhaustion" under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).
We decline to consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal. Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Gonzalez's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.