Case Name: Jason M. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dorothy Nash HOLMES, Prosecutor; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-12
Citations: 474 F. App'x 605
Docket Number: No. 11-16556
Parties: Jason M. JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dorothy Nash HOLMES, Prosecutor; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 605–606

Head Matter:
Jason M. JONES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dorothy Nash HOLMES, Prosecutor; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 11-16556.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 12, 2012.
Jason M. Jones, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nevada state prisoner Jason M. Jones appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to Jones's safety and health. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We vacate and remand.
The district court prematurely dismissed Jones's action as time-barred. It is not clear at this stage in proceedings whether the statute of limitations was tolled while Jones filed any administrative grievances. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 943 (9th Cir.2005) ("the applicable statute of limitations must be tolled while a prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion process"). Nor is it clear what date Jones filed this action. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir.2009) (the mailbox rule of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), applies to a pro se prisoner's § 1983 complaint).
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.