With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". jurisdiction. If a trial court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it has absolutely no authority to reach the merits of die case and is required as a matter of law to dismiss it. Kingsley v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 288 Kan. 390, 395, 204 P.3d 562 (2009); see K.S.A. 60-212(h)(3). Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is an issue of law over which we have unlimited review. In re Habeas Corpus Application of Pierpoint, 271 Kan. 620, 622-23, 24 P.3d 128 (2001). In this case, the district court had good reason to assume that an inmate’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction over a civil action. This is because we have said as much before. See, e.g., Corter v. Cline, 42 Kan. App. 2d 721, 724, 217 P.3d 991 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Boyd v. Werholtz, 41 Kan. App. 2d 15, 19, 203

A: holding that failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider claims brought under ksa 601501
B: holding that constitutional claims against defendants in their individual capacities were precluded by plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under pertinent statutory scheme
C: holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
D: holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim
A.