Russell Lee Sims v. CAMPBELL, Inmate Assignment Lieutenant

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RUSSELL LEE SIMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAMPBELL, Inmate Assignment
Lieutenant,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-56387
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01978-RGK-
JCG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Russell Lee Sims appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to
FILED
JUN 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 12-56387
his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315
F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sims’s action without prejudice
because Sims failed properly to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing
suit and failed to demonstrate that his appeals were improperly screened. 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) (concluding that administrative
remedies are “available” where administrative appeals were screened for proper
reasons and that an inmate who failed to follow specific instructions on how to
appeal had no reasonable good faith belief that administrative remedies were
effectively unavailable).
Sims’s contentions that the district court misplaced the burden of proof and
overlooked key evidence are unsupported by the record.
Sims’ other arguments were raised for the first time on appeal and we do not
consider them. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --