Brown

Opinion by Judge BERZON; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge REINHARDT.

We consider the application of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act’s (“PLRA”) exhaustion requirement, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), to circumstances in which an inmate has filed a grievance with a prison grievance system and, having received some relief before the final level of review, does not pursue his grievance further. In these two cases with similar but somewhat different factual backgrounds, the district courts certified interlocutory appellate review. We accepted jurisdiction and have consolidated them for purposes of decision. We conclude that Peter Brown adequately exhausted the available grievance process but Robert Hall did not.

BACKGROUND

We begin by providing a brief overview of the California Department of Corrections’ (“Department”) internal grievance system and of the factual background of each case.

1. Grievance system: California’s Department of Corrections provides a four-step grievance process for prisoners who seek review of an administrative decision or perceived mistreatment. Within fifteen working days of “the event or decision being appealed,” the inmate must ordinarily file…

concurring in part, and dissenting in part:

Because neither Brown nor Hall exhausted all of the administrative relief that was available through the California Department of Corrections’ grievance process and because Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 , 121 S.Ct. 1819 , 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001), requires that in such circumstances their complaints be dismissed, I respectfully concur as to Hall and dissent as to Brown.

Notwithstanding the majority’s attempt to distinguish Brown’s case from Hall’s, the factual and legal similarities between these two cases are overwhelming. Hall and Brown were inmates at the same prison at the time of the alleged assaults. In both cases, the plaintiffs were physically assaulted; they were pepper sprayed; and they suffered injuries for which both sought and allegedly failed to receive proper medical treatment. Both plaintiffs sought relief for their grievances through the Department of Corrections’ administrative appeals process; both sought com *944 pensation for their injuries and the alleged violations of their rights.

After their appeals were received by the appropriate officials, both inmates bypassed the informal and formal levels and both appeals…

BACKGROUND

We begin by providing a brief overview of the California Department of Corrections’ (“Department”) internal griev- ance system and of the factual background of each case.

1. Grievance system: California’s Department of Correc- tions provides a four-step grievance process for prisoners who seek review of an administrative decision or perceived mis- treatment. Within fifteen working days of “the event or deci- sion being appealed,” the inmate must ordinarily file an “informal” appeal, through which “the appellant and staff involved in the action or decision attempt to resolve the griev- ance informally.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, §§ 3084.5(a), 3084.6(c).1 If the issue is not resolved during the informal appeal, the grievant next proceeds to the first formal appeal 1 There are eight situations in which attempted resolution at the informal level is not required. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3084.5(a)(3). As rele- vant here, the informal level is not required when a grievance involves “[a]lleged misconduct by a departmental peace officer.” Id. § 3084.5(a)(3)(G). BROWN v. VALOFF 12349 level, usually conducted by the prison’s Appeals Coordinator.…