Geoffrey Wilson v. James Tilton;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GEOFFREY WILSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES TILTON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-55032
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02454-JVS-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Geoffrey Wilson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among other
things, violations of his constitutional right to adequate dental care. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-55032 2
exhaust administrative remedies and for clear error any underlying factual findings.
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s Eighth Amendment claims
against defendants Farber-Szekreni, Kuykendall, and Ashley without prejudice
because Wilson failed properly to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing
suit, and he failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that administrative
remedies were effectively unavailable to him. 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); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 826
(9th Cir. 2010) (administrative remedies are “available” where administrative
appeals are screened for proper reasons).
We do not consider Wilson’s other claims because Wilson has not raised
them on appeal. See Wilcox v. Comm’r, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988)
(arguments not raised on appeal by pro se litigant deemed abandoned).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilson leave to file
a Second Amended Complaint where amendment would have been futile. See
Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-55032 3
Wilson’s contention that the district court failed to address his Eighth
Amendment claim against defendant Ashley is unpersuasive because the district
court dismissed the claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Defendants’ motion to augment the appellate record, filed on August 8,
2012, is granted.
Defendants’ motion to take judicial notice, filed on August 8, 2012, is
denied as unnecessary.
Wilson’s opposed motion to augment the appellate record, filed on August
23, 2012, is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --