Case Name: James W. COVERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. GRAHAM, CDCR Lieutenant; R. Harrison, CDCR Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-25
Citations: 467 F. App'x 587
Docket Number: No. 10-16134
Parties: James W. COVERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. GRAHAM, CDCR Lieutenant; R. Harrison, CDCR Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
James W. COVERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. GRAHAM, CDCR Lieutenant; R. Harrison, CDCR Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-16134.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 25, 2012.
James W. Covert, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.
Christopher Michael Young, Esquire, Attorney General Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
James W. Covert, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 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). We vacate and remand.
Defendants have not met their burden of proving that Covert's action should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Covert stated in his sworn declaration in opposition to the motion to dismiss that he attempted to file appeals at the second level of review for his May 6, 2005 grievance, and that these appeals were never properly processed. Defendants relied on a declaration by appeals coordinator Padilla that does not explain the prison's record keeping methods or otherwise address how attempted inmate appeals are tracked or handled. See id. at 1116-17, 1119-20 (an incomplete record is inadequate to establish nonexhaustion). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.