Jenghiz K. Stewart v. UNKNOWN KORSEN, Officer;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JENGHIZ K. STEWART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN KORSEN, Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15295
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01144-JWS
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
MAR 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15295 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 of 2 --