JACK JOHNSON V. J. MILSON, No. 20-56250 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JACK ORLANDO JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-56250 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-07485-VBF-PD v. MEMORANDUM* J. MILSON, Defendant-Appellee. 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). 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 20-56250

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.