
    Robert Alan ANTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MENDEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-16618.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 13, 2011.
    Robert Alan Anton, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Matthew W. Kubicek, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Alan Anton, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights in connection with the use of force during an inmate fight. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual determinations. Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Anton’s excessive force claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Mendez offered evidence showing that Anton did not properly file any grievances alleging excessive force before initiating this action, and Anton did not effectively rebut this evidence. See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir.2003) (“[DJefendants have the burden of ... proving the absence of exhaustion!,]” and “[i]n deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust nonjudicial remedies, the court may look beyond the pleadings and decide disputed facts.”); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion prior to filing suit).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anton’s motions for reconsideration because Anton set forth no basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

Anton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Anton’s request for discovery or, in the alternative, to supplement the record is denied. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1988) (“Papers not filed with the district court or admitted into evidence by that court are not part of the clerk’s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal.”).

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