
    William Thomas COATS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael FOX, Dr., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-18085.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2012.
    William Thomas Coats, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Megan R. O’Carroll, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     