Case ID: f-appx_498/html/0723-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andy Charles BODIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Unknown TIPTEN, Detention Officer at Pinal County Sheriff’s Office; Unknown Locthert, Detention Officer at Pinal County Sheriffs Office, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17845.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 20, 2012.
    Andy Charles Bodie, Florence, AZ, pro se.
    Michele Molinario, Eileen Dennis Gil-bride, Esquire, Jones Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.