Case Name: Guillermo Cruz TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOMEZ, C/O; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-19
Citations: 688 F. App'x 452
Docket Number: No. 16-16567
Parties: Guillermo Cruz TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOMEZ, C/O; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and . HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 452–453

Head Matter:
Guillermo Cruz TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOMEZ, C/O; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16567
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 19, 2017
Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, Pro Se
Andrea R. Sloan, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Zewugeberhan Desta, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 ("[Wjhere a failure to exhaust is clear from the face of the complaint, a defendant may successfully move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.").
We do not consider 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.