Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07048/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07048-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 18 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

GILBERT DEAN DA VIS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF 

AMERICA; CHARLES RAY, Warden; 

BILL BOYD, Assistant Warden; 

EZELL, Deputy Warden, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-7048 

(D.C. No. 02-CV-215-S) 

(E. D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, McCONNELL, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.l(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Gilbert Dean Davis is a prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 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. 

Appellate Case: 04-7048 Document: 010110562671 Date Filed: 04/18/2005 Page: 1
Department of Corrections (DOC), housed in the Davis Correctional Facility 

under a contract between the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the 

DOC. Mr. Davis filed a pro se civil rights complaint requesting injunctive relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged defendants violated his constitutional rights 

by interfering with his practice of Islam and disciplining him without due process 

oflaw. 1 The district court entered summary judgment against Mr. Davis on two 

grounds: failure to exhaust administrative remedies and, with regard to 

disciplinary proceedings, lack of cognizable due-process violations. We affirm. 

A. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies 

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § l 997e(a), an 

inmate must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a civil-rights 

suit with respect to prison conditions. See Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 

F .3d 1204, 1206 (10th Cir. 2003 ). Mr. Davis claimed he had exhausted available 

administrative remedies and, as proof, attached four documents arising from the 

prison grievance system. 

The district court ordered preparation of an investigative report pursuant to 

Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317,319 (10th Cir. 1978) (stating district court may 

We construe Mr. Davis's pleadings liberally, holding them "to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" because he is a pro 

se litigant. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Hall v. Bellman, 935 

F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-7048 Document: 010110562671 Date Filed: 04/18/2005 Page: 2
order prison officials to file investigative reports in prisoner civil rights suits). 

The Martinez report set out the prison's multi-step grievance procedure and 

described Mr. Davis's inconsistent approach to the process. Supporting 

documentation demonstrated that, although Mr. Davis had filed several grievances 

on an assortment of issues, he had not pursued any grievance to exhaustion. 

Defendants moved for summary judgment, in part on the ground that Mr. 

Davis failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Mr. Davis responded that 

officials had refused to provide him with writing materials or "the rules to be 

followed," Rec., doc. 17 at 1, and that one individual had given him faulty advice. 

Id. He also claimed he had difficulty "in preparing and filing legal papers" 

because he is "a slow learner and thinker and is currently enrolled in class to 

receive his G.E.D." Id., doc. 23 at 2. The district court determined that Mr. 

Davis had "failed to make any viable argument that he ha[ d] exhausted his 

administrative remedies as to the claims brought in his complaint," id., doc. 25, at 

11, and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed. 

In this court, Mr. Davis re-asserts and expands upon his argument that his 

educational deficiencies make compliance with the grievance system 

problematic. 2 We note, however, that Mr. Davis's district court submissions did 

2 For the first time on appeal, Mr. Davis has submitted a form indicating that, 

at the time he filed his complaint, he scored at the fifth-grade level in adult basic 

(continued ... ) 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-7048 Document: 010110562671 Date Filed: 04/18/2005 Page: 3
not describe insurmountable barriers to his filing of grievances and did not show 

that prison officials had effectively foreclosed his efforts. See Steele, 355 F.3d at 

1214. Indeed, the record demonstrates that Mr. Davis had initiated several 

grievance proceedings. "An inmate who begins the grievance process but does 

not complete it is barred from pursuing a § 1983 claim ... for failure to exhaust 

his administrative remedies." Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F .3d 1030, 1032 

(10th Cir. 2002). Thus, summary judgment, "limited to the narrow issue of 

exhaustion and the prisoner's efforts to exhaust," was the appropriate disposition 

of Mr. Davis's claims, Steele, 355 F.3d at 1212, particularly given that a dismissal 

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies does not preclude curing the defect 

if that is still a viable option. Id. at 1212-13. 

B. Failure to allege cognizable due process violations 

The district court also evaluated the merits of a subset of Mr. Davis's 

claims. Based upon Supreme Court precedent, the court determined defendants 

were entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Davis's allegations of due process 

violations. "Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal 

prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings 

does not apply." Wolffv. A,fcDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,556 (1974). For a prison 

2

( .•• continued) 

education tests. We generally do not consider evidence not in the record before 

the district court. See Nulfv. Int'/ Paper Co., 656 F.2d 553,559 (10th Cir. 1981). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-7048 Document: 010110562671 Date Filed: 04/18/2005 Page: 4
disciplinary hearing which may result in the loss of a liberty interest, due process 

requires that the inmate receive "( 1) advance written notice of the disciplinary 

charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and 

correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his 

defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on 

and the reasons for the disciplinary action." See Superintendent, Mass. Corr. 

Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,454 (1985) (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-

67). The findings also must be "supported by some evidence in the record." Id. 

Mr. Davis does not argue that his disciplinary proceedings lacked any of 

these procedural protections. Moreover, we agree with the district court that there 

exists "some evidence" to support the conclusions reached during the disciplinary 

hearings. Rec., doc. 25 at 12. The court correctly entered summary judgment on 

the merits of Mr. Davis's due process claims. 

Accordingly, after consideration of the record on appeal, the parties' briefs, 

and the district court's order, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We 

DENY Mr. Davis's motion to strike appellees' response brief. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-7048 Document: 010110562671 Date Filed: 04/18/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 04-7048 Document: 010110562671 Date Filed: 04/18/2005 Page: 6