* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, ex cept under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel . The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially as sist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered (continued...) 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 28 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RIC J. SISNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 98-3281 WYANDOTTE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; J.B. HOPKINS, Jail Administrator, Wyandotte County Detention Center; MICHAEL S. DAILEY, Sheriff, Wyandotte County Detention Center; F. CHARLES DUNLAY, Assistant Counsel, Wyandotte County Detention Center; NICK A TOMASIC, District Attorney; FLOYD GARNER, Classification Manager, Wyandotte County Detention Center; JOSEPH CONNER, Business Manager, Wyandotte County Detention Center, Defendants-Appellees. (D.C. No. 98-3251) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BALDOCK , and HENRY , Circuit Judges. **** (...continued)

submitted without oral argument. 

### 2 Plaintiff Ric J. Sisney appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complain t for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee housed at the Wyandott e County Detention Center in Kansas City, Kansas. Plaintiff’s complaint challenges numerous aspects of the conditions of his confinement at the detention center. The distri ct court, before Defendants were served with process, dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We review the district court’s dismissal under § 1997e de novo. See Basham v. Uphoff , No. 98-8013, 1998 WL 847689, at *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 1998) (unpublished). Applying t his standard, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 199 5, states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditi ons under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jai l, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are avail able are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff’s complaint states that he “has pre viously sought informal and formal relief from the administrative officials regarding some of the acts complained of . . . [and] has filed grievances and written letters to the defendants. A lot of the grievances have went [sic] unanswered; the ones that have been answered deny any

### 3

wrongdoing. Most of the responses say they are within t he law.” The district court concluded that based on these statements “it does no t appear plaintiff has fully exhausted the administrative grievance procedures available to in mates at the detention center.” We conclude that the district court acted prematurely in d ismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. Reviewing Plaintiff’s pro se complaint liberally, see Peterson v. Shanks , 149 F.3d 1140, 1143 (10th Cir. 1998), we conclude that Plaintiff’s statements regarding exhaustion of his administrative remedies are sufficient to withstand dismissal under § 1997e(a) at this stage of the proceedings. See Basham , 1998 WL 847689, at * 4, (holding that where plaintiff has alleged exhaustion with suffici ent specificity, dismissal is improper under § 1997e(a)). Upon remand, the district court may direct service upon Defendants and the submission of a report under Martinez v. Aaron , 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), in order to allow the district court to determine whether Plaintiff fa iled to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court, of course, may screen Plai ntiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915A to determine whether the complaint should be dismissed as frivolous. VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent wit h this order and judgment. Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge