Case ID: f-appx_466/html/0566-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lynnard A. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven G. DAVIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-15545.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 12, 2012.
    Lynnard A. Smith, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Christopher Michael Young, Esquire, Attorney General Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lynnard A. Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We vacate and remand.

The district court concluded that Smith’s June 5, 2005 grievance could not serve to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his First Amendment retaliation claim because Smith did not properly present his retaliation claim until October 20, 2005, four months after his grievance was filed. However, it appears that the handwritten pages signed June 5, 2005, appended to the grievance form and complaining that Davis’s conduct was a “direct reprisal” against him, predated the October 20, 2005 allegations. Thus, we are in doubt as to exhaustion. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings to allow the district court to reexamine whether Smith properly exhausted his retaliation claim.

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.