
    Daniel Joseph RICHBOURG, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Danny R. HORTON, Richard E. Wathen; Oscar E. Paul; Mr. McGrath; G. Isenberg, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-10419
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 15, 2008.
    Daniel J. Richbourg, Jr., Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, New Boston, TX, pro se.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Daniel Joseph Richbourg, Jr., Texas prisoner # 609149, seeks to proceed in for-ma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 complaint challenging disciplinary-proceedings brought against him as frivolous and his claim of retaliation for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Richbourg is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. RApp. P. 24(a)(3). The district court properly dismissed Richbourg’s challenge to the disciplinary proceedings brought against him pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

However, the district court’s dismissal of Riehbourg’s claim of retaliation based on his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies was premature because it was not clear from the face of his complaint that Richbourg had not exhausted all remedies available to him. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 921, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007);. Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir.2007); Holloway v. Gunnell, 685 F.2d 150, 154 (5th Cir.1982). Thus, the district court erred in certifying that this claim did not raise a nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Richbourg’s motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED with respect to his retaliation claim. The district court’s judgment and certification decision is AFFIRMED with respect to the challenge to the disciplinary conviction; VACATED with respect to the retaliation claim, and the ease is REMANDED for further proceedings with respect to the retaliation claim. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     