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.