Opinion
20-56250
05-24-2022
JACK ORLANDO JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. MILSON, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 17, 2022 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:19-cv-07485-VBF-PD
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
California state prisoner Jack Orlando Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (legal rulings on exhaustion); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for failure to state a claim). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson's action because it was clear from the face of Johnson's operative complaint that Johnson failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169 (where a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a district court may dismiss for failure to state a claim); Griffin v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (a prisoner's grievance must "alert[] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Milson's motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).