Carlos Ortega v. Mark Ritchie , 592 F. App'x 589 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               FEB 2 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CARLOS ARMANDO ORTEGA,                           No. 13-17127
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:09-cv-05527-SBA
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MARK RITCHIE, M.D.; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 21, 2015**
    Before:        CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Carlos Armando Ortega appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action for failure to exhaust his available
    administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review de novo legal rulings on the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Albino
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    v. Baca, 
    747 F.3d 1162
    , 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
    The district court properly concluded that Ortega failed to exhaust his
    administrative remedies because Ortega did not appeal the relevant grievance
    decisions to the final level of review before presenting his claims to the district
    court. See Woodford v. Ngo, 
    548 U.S. 81
    , 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper
    exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural
    rules).
    Because we affirm on the basis of Ortega’s failure to exhaust, we do not
    address Ortega’s contentions concerning the merits of his claims.
    We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s post-judgment order
    denying Ortega’s motion for reconsideration because Ortega failed to file a new or
    amended notice of appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      13-17127
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-17127

Citation Numbers: 592 F. App'x 589

Filed Date: 2/2/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023