William Coats v. Michael Fox

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM THOMAS COATS, No. 11-18085
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01300-CMK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MICHAEL FOX, Dr.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Craig M. Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted September 10, 2012 ***
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William Thomas Coats appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We reverse and
remand.
The district court dismissed Coats’s claims against defendant Fox because
Coats did not exhaust administrative remedies at the second and final levels of
review. However, Coats’s grievance requested immediate Interferon treatment for
his Hepatitis C, and the first level of review “fully granted” the appeal. The
response stated that Coats would receive Interferon treatment when he reached a
mainline facility and that he would be transferred as soon as possible, and it
thereby satisfied Coats. Coats “ha[d] no obligation to appeal from a grant of relief
. . . in order to exhaust his administrative remedies. Nor is it [his] responsibility to
ensure that prison officials actually provide the relief that they have promised.”
Harvey v. Jordan, 605 F.3d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we reverse and
remand for further proceedings on Coats’s claims against defendant Fox.
We do not consider the dismissal of Coats’s claims against the remaining
defendants because Coats has failed to raise these issues on appeal. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 11-18085