Aviña

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Aviña, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his *741 due process, First Amendment, and Eighth Amendment rights by validating him as a gang associate and transferring him to an indeterminate term in a security housing unit (“SHU”)- We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003) (exhaustion of administrative remedies); Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.2003) (summary judgment). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Aviña contends that he received insufficient opportunity to be heard before his confinement in the SHU because he did not have an opportunity to meet with the Institutional Gang Investigator (“IGI”) pri- or to his validation. The district court concluded that Aviña failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to this claim. We disagree. Aviña raised this due process claim in his April 22, 2002, inmate appeal, and defendants, over Aviña’s objections, incorrectly found that the appeal was duplicative of another appeal. Aviña properly followed…