FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDY CHARLES BODIE, No. 11-17845
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02788-RCB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNKNOWN TIPTEN, Detention Officer
at Pinal County Sheriff’s Office;
UNKNOWN LOCTHERT, Detention
Officer at Pinal County Sheriff’s Office,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Andy Charles Bodie, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations
*
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).
of his right to free religious exercise for failure to exhaust his 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, Griffin v. Arpaio, 557
F.3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice because
Bodie did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies, and he failed to
provide sufficient evidence to show that administrative remedies were effectively
unavailable to him. 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); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion
is not required where administrative remedies are “effectively unavailable”).
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).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-17845