Case ID: f-appx_452/html/0792-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rayne Dee WELLS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James McLEAN, Clallam Bay Corrections Center Corrections Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-35663.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 7, 2011.
    Rayne Dee Wells, Jr., Steilacoom, WA, pro se.
    James Brooks Clemmons, Jr., Attorney General of Washington, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rayne Dee Wells, Jr., a Washington 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 the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Wells failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2878, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (concluding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). However, we vacate the judgment and remand for the limited purpose of considering whether to enter a dismissal without prejudice. See Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 (dismissals for failure to exhaust administrative remedies are without prejudice).

Wells’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

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