Case ID: f-appx_64/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HENRY, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marvin SEEGARS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron J. WARD, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 03-6032.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    May 22, 2003.
    Marvin Seegars, Hominy, OK, pro se.
    Ronald A. Anderson, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before EBEL, HENRY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

HENRY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not aid in the disposition of this appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2)(C). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Marvin Seegars, a prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that amendments to Oklahoma statutes have delayed his consideration for parole, thereby violating the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Mr. Seegars sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction directing prison officials to promulgate rules and regulations regarding parole procedures. In his complaint, Mr. Seegars acknowledged that he had not pursued administrative remedies, but he contended that to do so would be futile.

The district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, reasoning that Mr. Seegars had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), contains an exhaustion requirement and that “courts ’ cannot excuse the exhaustion of administrative remedies even if exhaustion would arguably be futile.” Rec. doc. 21, at 3 (Dist. Ct. Order, filed Jan. 13, 2003) (citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) and Jemigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir.2002)).

We agree with this analysis. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate’s report and recommendation and the district court’s order, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Seegars’ complaint without prejudice. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.