Case Name: Jeffrey W. OLNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HARTWIG, Department of Corrections Doctor, Snake River Correctional Institution; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-23
Citations: 323 F. App'x 598
Docket Number: No. 07-35233
Parties: Jeffrey W. OLNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HARTWIG, Department of Corrections Doctor, Snake River Correctional Institution; et al., Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Judges: Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 598–599

Head Matter:
Jeffrey W. OLNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John HARTWIG, Department of Corrections Doctor, Snake River Correctional Institution; et al., Defendants-Ap-pellees.
No. 07-35233.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2009.
Filed April 23, 2009.
Jeffrey W. Olney, Ontario, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Richard W. Wasserman, Paul L. Smith, Esq., Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jeffrey W. Olney, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 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), and we reverse and remand.
There is no indication that Olney's grievance was rejected for the procedural bases urged by the defendants, thus they have not met their burden of demonstrating nonexhaustion. See id. at 1119 ("[D]e-fendants have the burden of raising and proving the absence of exhaustion."). Accordingly, we reverse the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.