Summary
concluding that a fully-granted appeal at the first level was sufficient to exhaust remedies, even when the relief provided was not the exact relief plaintiff requested
Summary of this case from Pitts v. TuitamaOpinion
No. 12-16070 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00203-JAM-EFB
08-02-2013
CHARLES G. REECE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. K. SISTO, Warden; DON MIMIS, Plant Operation, Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Charles G. Reece appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2010), and we reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Reece's action because Reece did not exhaust administrative remedies at the second and final levels of review. However, because Reece's grievance was fully granted at the first level of review, Reece "ha[d] no obligation to appeal from a grant of relief . . . in order to exhaust his administrative remedies." Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.