Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-06245/USCOURTS-ca10-04-06245-0/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 STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 112005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

GEORGE WILLIAM JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS 

CORPORATION; DAYTON J. 

POPPELL, Warden; MARK FOGEL, 

MD; SANDRA ATWOOD; RON 

WARD; and FIVE UNKNOWN JOHN 

DOE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 04-6245 

(D.C. No. CV-03-483-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LUCERO, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, 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. 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 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: 04-6245 Document: 010110620164 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 1
Plaintiff George Johnson, a prisoner appearing prose, appeals the district 

court's dismissal of his complaint against defendants Wackenhut Correctional 

Corporation (WCC); Dayton Poppell, its warden; Mark Fogle, M.D. and Sandra 

Atwood, health professionals employed by WCC; Ron Ward, Director of the 

Oklahoma Department of Corrections; and five unidentified correctional officers. 1 

We affirm. 

I. 

Plaintiff alleges that, on March 12, 2001, five unidentified correctional 

officers at the Lawton Correctional Facility (LCF) operated by WCC allowed four 

inmates to enter his locked cell and assault him, in deliberate indifference to his 

health and safety in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. He further alleges 

medical staff at LCF gave him inadequate medical care following the assault in 

deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Finally, he alleges he was placed in 

solitary confinement following the assault, and that an LCF employee taped a note 

to his cell door prohibiting security staff and inmates from having any contact 

with him, in violation of his due process and Eighth Amendment rights as well as 

his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

Plaintiff also named as a defendant Southwestern Medical Center (SWMC), 

through its supervisory board. The district court granted summary judgment in 

favor of SWMC and plaintiff does not assert any claim of error on appeal with 

respect to that dismissal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-6245 Document: 010110620164 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 2
Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 9, 2003 alleging claims under 42 

U .S.C. § 1983 and the ADA. In it, he admitted that he had not exhausted his 

administrative remedies, but alleged he was prevented from doing so by 

defendants. The district court denied defendants' initial motions to dismiss the 

§ 1983 claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. 

§ l 997e, ruling that plaintiff had raised at least an inference that prison officials 

had prevented him from utilizing the grievance procedure. It then dismissed all 

claims against defendant Ward for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

l 2(b ). It further dismissed the ADA claims against all of the remaining 

defendants, with the exception of WCC, ruling these claims were barred against 

these defendants under the Eleventh Amendment's sovereign immunity. The 

district court ordered the remaining defendants to prepare a Martinez report, see 

A1artinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317,319 (10th Cir. 1978), and gave plaintiff fifteen 

days after the filing of that report to serve the unidentified John Doe defendants. 

Defendants then filed a Martinez report and a simultaneous motion for 

summary judgment. After giving plaintiff an opportunity to respond, the district 

court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It ruled that 

plaintiff had failed to effect service on the unknown John Doe defendants. It 

further dismissed plaintiff's § 1983 civil rights claims for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies because plaintiff presented no evidence that he had ever 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-6245 Document: 010110620164 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 3
attempted to pursue his administrative remedies. Finally, it dismissed his ADA 

claim against wee. 

II. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that an inmate must exhaust 

administrative procedures before bringing a § 1983 action with respect to prison 

conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This exhaustion requirement is mandatory and 

exists regardless of whether the suit involves "general circumstances or particular 

episodes," Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002), or whether the available 

remedies appear able to provide the relief sought, Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 

731, 7 41 (2001 ). In a § 1983 action, the burden is on the prisoner to sufficiently 

plead exhaustion of administrative remedies under § 1997e(a), which includes 

supplying supporting information or documentation of the exhaustion of his 

prison grievance proceedings. Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204, 

1209-10 (10th Cir. 2003). In order to exhaust administrative procedures, the 

inmate must see the grievance process to its conclusion; the doctrine of 

substantial compliance does not apply, and there is no exception for when the 

inmate fails to cure a procedural deficiency or neglects to employ available 

internal processes before the time expires for pursuing them. Jernigan v. 

Stuchell, 304 F .3d 1030, 1032-33 (10th Cir. 2002). We review de nova a district 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-6245 Document: 010110620164 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 4
court's dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under§ 1997e(a). 

Id. at 1032. 

Plaintiff contends that he was prevented from availing himself of the 

grievance procedure by virtue of the note he claims was placed on his cell door 

barring contact with prison staff and inmates, and because he could not write with 

his right hand. Courts have held that refusing a prisoner grievance forms could 

raise an inference that the prisoner has exhausted "available" administrative 

remedies. See Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736, 738, 740 (8th Cir. 2001) ("We 

believe that a remedy that prison officials prevent a prisoner from 'utiliz[ing]' is 

not an 'available' remedy under§ 1997e(a)"). Here, however, plaintiff presented 

no evidence indicating that he ever made any attempt to grieve his § 1983 claim. 

Nor is there any evidence that any LCF official prevented him from receiving any 

assistance he might have needed to begin the grievance process. It is undisputed 

that, notwithstanding any note on his cell door, Mr. Johnson had regular, daily 

contact with the prison medical staff, yet there is no evidence that he ever 

requested a grievance form or otherwise requested assistance with the grievance 

process from any medical staff, or any other prison staff, inmate or law clerk. 

There is also no evidence that plaintiff ever attempted to file an untimely 

grievance form, either upon his release from the medical unit or protective 

custody or upon his transfer to a different prison in July 2001. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 04-6245 Document: 010110620164 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 5
Plaintiff argues on appeal that, in their Martinez report, defendants failed to 

interview the witnesses who would have testified that he requested a grievance 

form while he was in the medical unit. It was his obligation, however, not the 

defendants, to present any information or documentation supporting his claim that 

he attempted to exhaust his prison grievance remedies. Steele, 355 F .3d at 1209-

10. Thus, the alleged note did not prevent him from exhausting his administrative 

remedies. 

Plaintiff's argument that he was unable to write is equally unavailing. The 

only mention in the medical records of any possible paralysis in his right side was 

a single notation in July 2001, more than three months after his injury. Prior to 

that, there is only one notation, on March 18, 2001, indicating that he was unable 

to write. All of the other medical reports, including reports after July 2001, 

describe plaintiff as having a weakened grip in his right hand, not an inability to 

write. Moreover, it is undisputed that the grievance procedures at LCF permit an 

inmate to request assistance if he is unable to write for any reason, and, as noted 

above, there is no evidence that plaintiff ever requested any such assistance. 

Thus, the injury to his right hand did not prevent him from timely exhausting his 

administrative remedies. 

Plaintiff's claim that defendants denied him access to LCF's grievance 

procedures and failed to provide him with reasonable accommodation in violation 

-6-

Appellate Case: 04-6245 Document: 010110620164 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 6
of his rights under the ADA similarly fails. Even assuming, purely for the sake of 

argument, that an inmate can assert an ADA claim for monetary damages against 

state prison officials, 2 plaintiff presented insufficient evidence that he is a 

qualified individual with a disability under the ADA, and presented no evidence 

that he was in any way denied the benefits of LCF's prison grievance procedure 

or was denied any reasonable accommodation or was otherwise discriminated 

against by any defendant. Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district 

court's dismissal of claims against the unknown John Doe defendants for failure 

to effect service. See Hendry v. Schneider, 116 F.3d 446,449 (10th Cir. 1997). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. We remind plaintiff that he must continue making partial payments 

until the entire balance of the appellate filing fee is paid. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

2 But see Cochran v. Pinchak, 401 F .3d 184, 193 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that 

ADA did not validly abrogate state's immunity for monetary claims brought by 

inmates under the ADA); Miller v. King, 384 F.3d 1248, 1275-76 (11th Cir. 2004) 

(same). 

-7-

Appellate Case: 04-6245 Document: 010110620164 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 7
Appellate Case: 04-6245 Document: 010110620164 Date Filed: 05/11/2005 Page: 8