Jason M. Jones v. DOROTHY NASH HOLMES, Prosecutor;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASON M. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DOROTHY NASH HOLMES, Prosecutor;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16556
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00047-LRH-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Jason M. Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to
Jones’s safety and health. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
FILED
JUL 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16556 2
review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We vacate
and remand.
The district court prematurely dismissed Jones’s action as time-barred. It is
not clear at this stage in proceedings whether the statute of limitations was tolled
while Jones filed any administrative grievances. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d
926, 943 (9th Cir. 2005) (“the applicable statute of limitations must be tolled while
a prisoner completes the mandatory exhaustion process”). Nor is it clear what date
Jones filed this action. See Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1104 (2009) (the
mailbox rule of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), applies to a pro se
prisoner’s § 1983 complaint).
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --