Greening
Greening v. Fletcher
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
David Greening, a Washington State prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (e)(a). We review de novo the district court’s determination that a prisoner failed to exhaust, and for clear error its findings of fact. Ngo v. Woodford, 403 F.3d 620, 622 (9th Cir.2005). We reverse and remand.
*627 The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before filing a federal action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Greening’s complaint alleged that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference towards his medical needs by not immediately allowing him to see a non-prison doctor who specialized in gastroenterology. After Greening’s Level II grievance was denied, he filed a petition through the kite system, which was granted. Greening was allowed to see a gastroenterologist, and the Grievance Program Manager informed Greening that there was no reason to continue with a Level III appeal because he received his suggested remedy at Level II. Because Greening’s request for adequate…