Case ID: f-appx_645/html/0538-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kevin Deon BRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. BEARD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-17476.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 23, 2016.
    Kevin Deon Brazier, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Suzanne Antley, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the Attorney Gener- ' al, San Diego, CA, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Kevin Deon Brazier appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from defendants’ failure to grant' him a kosher meal diet. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir.2015) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). We vacate and remand.

The district court concluded that Brazier failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as mandated by the Prison Litigation ^Reform Act. However, it is not clear from the face of the complaint and the exhibits attached to the complaint whether Brazier failed to exhaust available administrative remedies because his Second Level Appeal is not included in the record. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th Cir.2014) (en banc) (“[0]nly in rare cases will a district court be able to conclude from the face of the complaint that a prisoner has not exhausted his administrative remedies and that he is without a valid excuse.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211-217, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense which defendants must raise and prove). Because defendants did not meet their burden of demonstrating that Brazier failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Brazier’s motion requesting alternative dispute resolution, filed on December 16, 2015, and motion for settlement conference, filed on February 16, 2016, are denied.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R, 36-3.