Case Name: Kimiko RANSOME, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LONGERO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-03
Citations: 502 F. App'x 637
Docket Number: No. 12-15516
Parties: Kimiko RANSOME, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LONGERO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 502
Pages: 637–637

Head Matter:
Kimiko RANSOME, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. LONGERO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-15516.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Jan. 3, 2013.
Kimiko Ransome, Chowchilla, CA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
California state prisoner Kimiko Ran-some appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing sua sponte her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003). We vacate and remand.
Dismissal before defendant's appearance in the case was improper because Ran-some alleged in her complaint that she had completed the prison grievance process and exhausted her available administrative-remedies prior to filing suit. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214-16, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense and sua sponte dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA is only appropriate if, taking the prisoner's factual allegations as true, the complaint establishes her failure to exhaust).
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.