Jack Orlando Johnson v. J. Milson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACK ORLANDO JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. MILSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-56250
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-07485-VBF-PD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
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
* 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).
FILED
MAY 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-56250
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.

-- 2 of 2 --