Court Opinion

ID: 9409871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 19:01:17.707258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.130292
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARSHALL CHARLES RICHMOND,                      No.    22-35568

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00866-HZ

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL REESE, Multnomah County
Sheriff; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Oregon
               Marco A. Hernandez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 17, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Oregon state prisoner Marshall Richmond appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review “legal rulings on exhaustion de novo,” Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1171

(9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), and we reverse and remand.

      Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, and “inmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate

exhaustion in their complaints.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). In

general, “the proper procedural device for determining whether administrative

remedies have been exhausted is a summary judgment motion.” Williams v.

Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). In the “rare case” where a

prisoner’s failure to exhaust is apparent “from the face of the complaint, a

defendant may successfully move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to

state a claim.” Albino, 747 F.3d at 1169. Here, the district court erred by

dismissing Richmond’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 where

the failure to exhaust was not clear from the face of the complaint. Richmond

checked a box on the prisoner complaint form indicating that he had exhausted

administrative remedies, and the two letters from a third-party tort claim specialist

attached to the complaint do not suffice to show that Richmond failed to file a

grievance in this action. Indeed, there is no indication in the record that Richmond

did not file a grievance and also seek the advice of the tort claim specialist. We

reverse and remand for further proceedings.

      REVERSED AND REMANDED.

                                          2