SALADIN RUSHDAN, AKA Woods, AKA Robert Woods v. T. PERBULA, Counselor at CMF Vacaville;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALADIN RUSHDAN, AKA Woods,
AKA Robert Woods,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
T. PERBULA, Counselor at CMF
Vacaville; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16911
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00729-GEB-
KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Saladin Rushdan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with his
attempts to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JAN 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-16911 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,
1117 (9th Cir. 2003) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Barnett v.
Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) ( Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
dismissal). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Valdez v.
Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
Dismissal of Rushdan’s § 1983 claims was proper because Rushdan failed to
exhaust administrative remedies as to his claims against Ramirez-Palmer, Hall,
Perbula, Stratton, and Dovey. 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).
The district court properly dismissed Rushdan’s state law claims for failure
to allege compliance with the California Tort Claims Act as required for any civil
complaint for money damages against a public entity or employee. See Cal. Gov’t
Code §§ 911.2, 945.4; Baines Pickwick Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 85 Cal. Rptr.
2d 74, 77 (Ct. App. 1999) (“[T]he claims presentation requirements are not limited
to tort claims, but extend also to claims for money or damages based on
contract.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

-- 2 of 3 --

10-16911 3
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Rushdan’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --