
    Donald JEFFERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BENNGE, M.T.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16965.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 17, 2012.
    Donald Jeffery, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    Michael James Quinn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Donald Jeffery, an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights in connection with a 2003 incident in which prison officials used excessive force against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004), and we vacate and remand.

The district court concluded that Jeffery’s excessive force claim was barred under Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997), because he had failed to set forth evidence demonstrating that his rule-violation conviction, arising from the same 2003 incident, had been invalidated. On appeal, appellees acknowledge that the district court erred in granting their motion for summary judgment because Jeffery’s rule violation conviction had in fact been invalidated before he filed his § 1983 complaint. Appellees assert therefore that the Edwards bar does not apply and that this case should be remanded to the district court. Because it appears that Jeffery’s rule violation conviction in connection with the 2003 incident has been invalidated, we vacate the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on Jeffery’s excessive force claim and remand for further proceedings.

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