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
holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies holding that constitutional claims against defendants in their individual capacities were precluded by plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under pertinent statutory scheme holding that failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider claims brought under ksa 601501 holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review