*1 Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gilbert Ramirez appeals pro se from the district cou rt’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca , 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. *2 2014) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ramirez did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ross v. Blake , 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1859 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are effectively unavailable).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2
[*] 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).