
    Kevin O’CONNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16689.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2014.
    Kevin O’Connell, Soquel, CA, pro se.
    Jon S. Allin, Agca-Office Of The California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Kevin O’Con-nell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that O’Connell failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because O’Connell did not complete the prison’s grievance procedures concerning his claim or show that exhaustion was effectively unavailable. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (exhaustion is mandatory and must be done in a timely manner consistent with prison policies); cf. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir.2010) (excusing prisoner’s failure to exhaust where prisoner is prevented from doing so by a prison official’s mistake).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     