
    John R. BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Yolanda MARTINEZ, Deputy Warden at Santa Rita unit; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15807.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 19, 2012.
    John R. Baker, Buckeye, AZ, pro se.
    
      Paul Edward Carter, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Tucson, AZ, Sharon Moyer, Sacks Tierney PA., Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner John R. Baker appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner, Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 512-13 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice the claims against defendants Martinez and Quiroz because Baker failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. 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).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice the claims against defendants Sanchez and Verdugo because Baker failed to effect timely service or establish good cause for not having done so. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 days after the complaint is filed); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512-13 (discussing good cause standard).

Baker’s contentions that the district court judge was biased are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     