22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T530,MEMORANDUM Michael Louis Beattie, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir.2015). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even accepting Beattie’s contention that he delivered the required form to a prison officer on January 15, 2014 to be mailed, Beattie failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and he did not show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 90-91 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and “demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules”); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir.2010) (describing'limited circumstances where exhaustion might be excused). Beattie’s requests, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T562,

MEMORANDUM

Michael Louis Beattie, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Eighth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir.2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even accepting Beattie’s contention that he delivered the required form to a prison officer on January 15, 2014 to be mailed, Beattie failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and he did not show that administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 90-91 , 126 S.Ct. 2378 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and “demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules”); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir.2010) (describing'limited circumstances where exhaustion might be excused).

Beattie’s requests, set forth in his opening and reply briefs, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

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