Homer Lee Preyer v. N. SAUKHLA, M.D. for California Correctional Health Care Services;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOMER LEE PREYER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
N. SAUKHLA, M.D. for California
Correctional Health Care Services; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16425
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01027-JAM-
CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Homer Lee Preyer, a California state prisoner, 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 his serious medical
FILED
AUG 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Albino
v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Preyer’s action for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies because Preyer did not raise in his grievance the claims
that he now raises against the defendants in this action. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and
requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d
942, 946 (9th Cir. 2010) (a grievance must “provide notice of the harm being
grieved” and “[t]he level of detail in an administrative grievance necessary to
properly exhaust a claim is determined by the prison’s applicable grievance
procedures” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Preyer’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his reply brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
13-16425 2

-- 2 of 2 --