688 Fed.Appx. 452 (9th Cir. 2017), 16-16567, Trujillo v. Gomez
|Citation:||688 Fed.Appx. 452|
|Party Name:||GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOMEZ, C/O; et al., Defendants-Appellees|
|Attorney:||GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Crescent City, CA. For GOMEZ, C/O, FERNANDEZ, C/O, JUAREZ, Defendant - Appellees: Andrea R. Sloan, Zewugeberhan Desta, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||April 19, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted: April 11, 2017. [**]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01797-DAD-DLB. Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding.
Trujillo v. Gomez, (E.D. Cal., Apr. 27, 2016)
GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Crescent City, CA.
For GOMEZ, C/O, FERNANDEZ, C/O, JUAREZ, Defendant - Appellees: Andrea R. Sloan, Zewugeberhan Desta, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA.
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. 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); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005)
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Trujillo's action because it was clear from the face of the amended complaint that Trujillo failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing his lawsuit. See
McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion must be completed before a § 1983 action is filed; exhaustion during the pendency of the litigation is insufficient because exhaustion is a precondition to suit); see also Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169 (" [W]here a failure to exhaust is clear...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP