NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 29 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CRAIG KAISER GARRETT, No. 20-55209 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-10754-AB-KES v. MEMORANDUM* PAULETTE FINANDER, Prison Doctor, official and individual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 20, 2021** Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Craig Kaiser Garrett appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (legal rulings on exhaustion); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garrett’s action because Garrett failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies in a timely manner as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856 (2016) (proper administrative exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88-91 (2006) (prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines, as a precondition to suit); see also Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169 (where a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a district court may dismiss for failure to state a claim).

All pending requests are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-55209