David Paul Ruff v. D. Vanleer;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DAVID PAUL RUFF,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
D. VANLEER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17340
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02789-KJM-
CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David Paul Ruff appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force
and inadequate medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813,
FILED
OCT 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-17340 2
821 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ruff’s action because Ruff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies, and to establish either that administrative
remedies were effectively unavailable or that he should have otherwise been
excused from having to exhaust. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93 (2006)
(proper and timely exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to filing
suit in federal court); Sapp, 623 F.3d at 818 (discussing administrative exhaustion
requirements under California regulations); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217,
1224, 1226 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances under which
administrative remedies may be rendered effectively unavailable or an inmate may
be excused from exhausting them).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --