N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DARR YL B UR GHAR

DT, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. J. FR ANZ; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-15498 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-05190-B LF M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B e th La bson Fre e m an, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Darry l B urgha

rdt a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his a c tion a lle ging re ta lia t i on a n d de libe ra te indiffe re nc e to his sa fe ty . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt for fa i lure to e xha ust a dm inistra

t ive re m e d ie s. W

illiams v
. 

# FIL ED DEC 20 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Paramo , 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th C i r. 2015). W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion thedistric t c ourt’ s dism issa l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 4(m ). In reShe e han , 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th C ir. 2001). W e a ffirm in pa rt, va c ate in pa rt, a nd re m a nd. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt for de fe nda

nts Fra nz , Ke lle y , a nd B ra gge r be c a

use B urgha

rdt fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he e xha

uste d his a dm i nistra

tive re m e die s be fore filing his la wsuit or whe the r a dm inistra tive re m e die s we re e ffe c tive ly una v a i la ble . Se e Sapp v . K imbre ll , 623 F.3d 813, 822 (9th C ir. 2010) (PLR Adoe s not re quire e xha

ustion whe n re m e die s a

re “ e ffe c tive ly

una va ila ble ” ); Mc K inne y v . C are y , 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-201 (9th C ir. 2002) (prison grieva n c e proc e s s m

ust be c om

ple t e d be fore a c ivil rights ac tion is file d; e xha ustion during the

pe nde nc y

of the litiga

tion is insuffic ie nt be c a

use e xha ustion is a

pre c ondition to suit). W e tre at the judgm e nt a s a dism i ssa l without pre

judic e a s to the se c la im s. Se e Lira v . He rre ra , 427 F.3d 1164, 1170 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ [A] distric t c ourt m ust dismiss a

c a se without pre j udic e whe n

the re is no pre [-] suit

e xha ustion.”(c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). Howe v e r, the distric t c ourt dismisse d de fe nda nt Gra ham unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 4(m ) be c a

use the U.S. M arsha l c ould not loc ate him to e ffe c tuate se rvic e . The
1 5 - 1 5 4 9 8 2distric t c o urt orde re d B urgha rdt to providethe c ourt with Gra ham ’ s loc ation so tha

t the U .S. M a

rsha l c o uld se rve Graham . B urgha rdt file d a notic e c onta i ning a

ne w a ddre s s for Gra

h am , but thedistric t c ourt a ppa re ntly ove rlooke d this notic e . Ac c ordingly , we va c a te the judgm e nt in pa rt a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings a s to Gra ham only . The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

1 5 - 1 5 4 9 8 3