
    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).
    
   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.
     