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.