Thomas Eugene MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees, 362 F. App'x 582

MEMORANDUM Thomas Eugene Moore, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm. Moore does not challenge the dismissal under Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), of his claims related to the alleged destruction of evidence in his criminal case, thus we deem these claims abandoned. See Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 232 F.3d 979, 984 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm the dismissal of the claims in the First Amended Complaint concerning alleged events at High Desert State Prison and the alleged public disclosure of Moore’s medical records, because it is clear from the face of the complaint and Moore’s concession on appeal that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.

See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th Cir.2005) (“[A] district court must dismiss a case without prejudice when there is no presuit exhaustion, even if there is exhaustion while suit is pending.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1120 (9th Cir.2003) (“A prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal....”). We construe the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. See Tumble v.

City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (stating that dismissals under Heck are without prejudice); Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 (stating that dismissals for failure to exhaust administrative remedies are without prejudice). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.