BLACKWELL v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION AGPA LAC (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Rodney Karl Blackwell appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 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); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Blackwell's action because it was clear from the face of Blackwell's operative complaint that Blackwell 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); McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (requiring inmates to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit in federal court).

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).

AFFIRMED.