MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Raymond Newsom appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing, for failure to exhaust his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Newsom’s action because Newsom failed *446 properly to exhaust administrative remedies and failed to demonstrate that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1224-26 (9th Cir. 2010) (where defendant establishes failure to exhaust, burden shifts to plaintiff to prove that administrative remedies were unavailable to him).

AFFIRMED.