Case Name: Andray STAGGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lyle BROADHEAD, Deputy Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-23
Citations: 323 F. App'x 590
Docket Number: No. 07-17251
Parties: Andray STAGGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lyle BROADHEAD, Deputy Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 590–590

Head Matter:
Andray STAGGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lyle BROADHEAD, Deputy Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-17251.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009 .
Filed April 23, 2009.
Andray Staggers, Winslow, AZ, pro se. Paul E. Carter, Esq., Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Andray Staggers, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because McCarthy did not complete the prison grievance process prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that "proper exhaustion" under § 1997e(a) requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).
We will not consider Staggers' newly-raised contention that a prison official named Richards allegedly did not allow him to grieve his claim. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (explaining that, as a general rule, the court will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal).
Staggers' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.