UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES A. CHILDS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOE ORTIZ; BARRY PARDUS; DENNIS BURBANK; RANDY FOSHEE; WILLIAM RICHTER; T. KEELER; LT. HOLCOMB; DONNA MURPHY, et al.; M. WINDEN; STEVE OWENS; DONALD McCALL; J. BROWN; SGT. SIMMONS; K. MEYER; PHIL MARMALEJO; JULIE RUSSELL; JASON ELSE; ANTHONY DECESARO; KAREN COOPER; MICHAEL ARELLANO; SHERYL HEBERT; R. TWILLEGER; L.A. RAMIREZ,

Defendants-Appellees.	No. 06-1368

(D.C. No. 06-cv-741-ZLW)

(Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before MURPHY, SEYMOUR, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

James A. Childs, a pro se state prisoner,1 brought a complaint in the district court challenging various conditions of his confinement. The district court dismissed his claims for failure to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies. We vacate the district court's order and remand for further consideration.

Mr. Childs, a prisoner in custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections, filed a multi-claim complaint in district court challenging the conditions of his imprisonment. Prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies before challenging prison conditions in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Relying on our holding in Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir. 2003), which requires that prisoners demonstrate exhaustion in their complaint by "either attach[ing] copies of administrative proceedings or describ[ing] their disposition with specificity," the district court concluded Mr. Childs "failed to describe with specificity the exhaustion of each of his claims," and "dismissed [Mr. Childs' claims] for failure to demonstrate exhaustion of the . . . administrative-grievance procedure." See Rec., vol. I, doc. 22 at 5.

The Supreme Court recently held failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense and not a pleading requirement. Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 921 (2007). We have since recognized that Jones overruled the pleading requirement outlined in Steele, the basis for the district court's dismissal of Mr. Childs' complaint. See Aquilar-
Avellaveda v. Terrell, 478 F.3d 1223, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007). As we said in Freeman v. Watkins, 479 F.3d 1257, 1260 (10th Cir. 2007), "it is no longer appropriate for the district court to require an affirmative showing of exhaustion at this stage of the case."

In light of the recent rulings discussed above, we VACATE the district court's order and judgment of dismissal, and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings.2

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Circuit Judge