
    Eric Andrew O’DELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MUNGER, Floor Officer; G. BADILLA, Floor Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-55702.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    May 30, 2014.
    Eric A. O’Dell, pro se.
    Stephen Alexander Aronis, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1291.
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Eric Andrew O’Dell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and other claims. 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’Dell failed to exhaust his . administrative remedies because O’Dell did not exhaust his grievances to the final level of review in a timely manner, or establish that he should be excused from the exhaustion requirement. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88, 93, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (Prison Litigation Reform Act requires “proper exhaustion,” which means completing the administrative review process in compliance with all relevant deadlines and other applicable procedural rules); Sapp, 623 F.3d at 818 (setting forth administrative exhaustion process under relevant California regulations); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224, 1226 (9th Cir.2010) (where defendant Establishes failure to exhaust, burden shifts to plaintiff to prove that administrative remedies were unavailable to him).

O’Dell’s contentions regarding defendants’ alleged misstatement of facts and evidence, the district court’s alleged failure to review his arguments and exhibits, and the allegedly erroneous dismissal of his damages claims against defendants in their individual capacity, are unpersuasive.

O’Dell’s request for “all proper, just and equitable relief available,” filed on November 15, 2013, is denied as moot.

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