Carlos Armando Ortega v. Mark Ritchie, M.d.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ARMANDO ORTEGA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARK RITCHIE, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-17127
D.C. No. 4:09-cv-05527-SBA
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
FEB 2 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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.
13-17127 2

-- 2 of 2 --