Case Name: Jeffrey A. WALKER, Appellant v. Michael A. ZENK; K. Bittenbender; David M. Rardin; Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer; Sanchez; Litchard; George Watson; Terry Bam; Robin Gregg
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-15
Citations: 217 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 03-3298
Parties: Jeffrey A. WALKER, Appellant v. Michael A. ZENK; K. Bittenbender; David M. Rardin; Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer; Sanchez; Litchard; George Watson; Terry Bam; Robin Gregg.
Judges: Before: FISHER, GREENBERG and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
Jeffrey A. WALKER, Appellant v. Michael A. ZENK; K. Bittenbender; David M. Rardin; Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer; Sanchez; Litchard; George Watson; Terry Bam; Robin Gregg.
No. 03-3298.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 12, 2006.
Filed: Feb. 15, 2007.
Jeffrey A. Walker, Ray Brook, NY, pro se.
Stephen R. Cerutti, II, Office of United States Attorney Federal Budding, Harrisburg, PA, for Michael A. Zenk; K. Bitten-bender; David M. Rardin; Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer; Sanchez; Litchard; George Watson; Terry Bam; Robin Gregg.
Before: FISHER, GREENBERG and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Alan D. Lourie, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
Jeffrey A. Walker appeals from the District Court's dismissal of his Complaint. The Complaint included Bivens claims under the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. The District Court dismissed the Complaint because it determined that the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), required total exhaustion of administrative remedies, and Walker had not exhausted all of his administrative remedies for all of his claims. We held this case c. a. v. pending the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Bock, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).
In Jones, the Supreme Court addressed whether the PLRA required total exhaustion of administrative remedies as to all claims. Id. 127 S.Ct. at 923-26. The Supreme Court held that an inmate's complaint under the PLRA should not be dismissed when the inmate exhausted his administrative remedies for some of his claims, but not all. Id. According to Jones, the District Court should have considered the claims that were exhausted, and dismissed only the unexhausted claims. Therefore, we will vacate the District Court's decision and remand for proceedings consistent with Jones.