
    Leon Eugene MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. TURNER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15686
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 19, 2018
    Leon Eugene Morris, Pro Se
    Kevin Allen Voth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Brown, J. Hernandez, Manski, M. Biggs, R. Striegel, C. M. Green, Crawford, G. Low
    Scott Matthew Nenni, Esquire, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Guffee
    Janet N. Chen, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Kevin Alen Voth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee A, Cruz
    Arthur B. Mark, III, Esquire, Attorney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Special Appearance
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Leon Eugene Morris appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Morris did not exhaust administrative remedies and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (a prisoner must properly exhaust “which means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 823-24, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing limited circumstances under which exhaustion may be effectively unavailable).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Morris’s motion for leave to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 40) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 41.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
     