Case Name: Edward THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. A. LAMARQUE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-07
Citations: 321 F. App'x 660
Docket Number: No. 07-15503
Parties: Edward THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. A. LAMARQUE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 321
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
Edward THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. A. LAMARQUE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-15503.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed April 7, 2009.
Edward Thomas, High Desert State Prison, Susanville, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellant.
Christopher M. Young, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Edward Thomas appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Thomas did not properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing his complaint in federal court. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (explaining that "proper exhaustion" requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). Further, Thomas failed to show that he was prevented from exhausting.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.