
    Ruben Joseph RUIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Everett FISCHER; Devon Hawkes; John Harrison, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-17747.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 18, 2013.
    Filed May 2, 2013.
    Ruben Joseph Ruiz, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
    Scott John Feudale, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of The California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Ruiz alleges that prison officials violated his due process rights in validating him as a prison gang associate. He now appeals the district court’s dismissal of claims against Defendants Hawkes and Fischer for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Harrison.

We grant the appellees’ motion to augment the record. See Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the motion to dismiss, however, because the case is not moot. See Bernhardt v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 872 (9th Cir.2002).

The district court should not have dismissed the claims against Defendants Hawkes and Fischer for failure to exhaust because it was reasonable for Ruiz to have relied on the statements by the Deputy Attorney General during state court proceedings that further exhaustion was not required. See Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 937 (9th Cir.2005). We nonetheless affirm the district court’s dismissal and grant of summary judgment because Ruiz’s substantive claims lack merit. We have recently held that “some evidence” is needed for validation as a prison gang associate. Castro v. Terhune, 712 F.3d 1304, 2013 WL 1364134, at * 7 n. 4 (9th Cir. April 5, 2013). Here, as the district court recognized, the Defendants had “some evidence” with the requisite indicia of reliability before they validated Ruiz. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     