his appellate objections, which in turn were also found without merit by the Court of Appeals, and returned it for a potentially complex additional inquiry into exhaustion,” and where “[i]f plaintiff failed to exhaust, the resulting dismissal would be without prejudice to his re-filing this mer-itless claim after exhausting the grievance procedures”). Other appellate courts have also vacated district court decisions that reached the merits — even though finding for the officials — without considering the issue of exhaustion first. See e.g., McAdoo v. Terhune, 54 Fed.Appx. 664, 664 (9th Cir.2003) (unpublished decision) (vacating grant of summary judgment, noting that the “district court erred in reaching the merits of McAdoo’s case”); Brown v. Toombs, 139 F.3d 1102, 1104 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Whereas the PLRA requires dismissal for
holding that a dismissal based on a jurisdictional statute of limitations does not constitute a judgmerit on the merits because a judgment on the merits can only be rendered after a court has jurisdiction holding after we found standing following a district courts dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that the merits will be for the district court to decide on remand holding court will not process or decide the merits of any case on appeal that does not comply with the statute holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits