N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ARK ANTHONY JONES, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ALIFOR

NIA DEPAR TM ENT OF C ORREC TIONS; KENNETH C LAR K, W arde n; C OUC H, C DC ISU Offic e r, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-17484 D.C . No. 1:08-c v-00069-LJOGB C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 10, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, W . FLETC HER , a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nt M ark Jone s, a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion for fa i lure to e xha ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s unde r the Prison Litiga tion Re form

Ac t, 42 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED AUG 12 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.§ 1997e . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo the

distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l for fa ilure to e xha ust, Sapp v . K

i mbre ll , 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th C i r. 2010), a

nd for a n a buse of disc re tion its de c i sion whe the r to hold a n e vide ntia ry he a ring. Ste w art v . C

ate , No. 10-55985, 2014 W L 1707033, a

t *3 (9th C ir. M ay 1, 2014). W e re ve rse and re m and. W ithout holding a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring, thedistric t

c o urt dismi sse d the a c tion for fa ilure to e xha

ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s be c a

use Jone s did not ta

ke prope r steps to a le rt prison offic ia ls to his reta lia tion c la im . Although the

c ourt a c knowle dge d Jone s’ s form a l first-le ve l grie va nc e , it he ld tha

t the grie va

nc e did not a le rt prison offic ia l s to thec la im s tha t Jone s a lle ge d in his § 1983 a c t ion be c a use it did not inc lude inform ation a bout Offic e C ouc h’ s thre at. W e a gre e that the form a l-first-le ve l c o m pla int doe s not a lle ge re t a lia t ion. Ne ve rthe le ss, Jone s’ s Ja

nua ry 10, 2012 de c la

rat ion sta te s tha t he e xha uste d his re ta lia tion c la im by inc luding it in a

grie v anc e 602. W

he the r Jone s a c tua lly

file d a grie va nc e 602, a

nd whe the r the grie va

nc e a lle ge d re ta l iation a

re m ate ria l fa c tua l que stions tha

t we re not re a d ily a sc e rta i na ble from the pa rtie s’ de c la

rations. Albino v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba n c ) (“ [F] a c tua l que stions re le va nt to e x ha ustion should be

de c ide d by

the judge , in thesa

m e m anne r a

judge rathe r tha n a jury de c ide s dispute d fa c tua l que stions re le va nt to jurisdiction a

nd 2ve nue .” ). B e c a use distric t c ourts should he ar ora l te stim ony whe re , a s he re ,

“ fa c tua l que stions [a

re ] not re a dily

a sc e rta i na

ble from the de c la rations of witne sse s or que stions of c re dibility pre dom inate ,” the distric t c ourt a buse d its discre tion by fa iling to c onduc t a

n e v ide ntia ry he aring. Unite d C

omme rc ial Ins. Se rv ., Inc . v . Pay maste r C

o r p. , 962 F.2d 853, 858 (9th C ir. 1992). Ac c ordingly , we RE V E R SE the judgm e nt of thedistric t c ourt a nd RE M A ND for an e vide ntia ry he aring on e xha

ustion a n d suc h furthe r proc e e dings a s m ay be ne c e ssa

ry on the m e rits of Jone s’ s c la im s.

3