Jenghiz Stewart v. Unknown Korsen

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 12 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JENGHIZ K. STEWART, No. 11-15295 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01144-JWS v. MEMORANDUM * UNKNOWN KORSEN, Officer; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding ** Submitted March 6, 2012 *** Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Jenghiz K. Stewart, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice because Stewart failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing suit). Stewart’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). We grant Stewart’s pending motion, filed on October 27, 2011, requesting an extension of time to file his reply brief, and we instruct the Clerk to file the reply brief received on November 4, 2011. AFFIRMED. 2 11-15295