Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07047/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07047-0/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 

APR27 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

DANNY DEWAYNE BREWER, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

MIKE MULLIN, Warden; MELINDA 

GUILFOYLE, Director's Designee; 

KAREN KNOX, BRAD MA TTIODA, 

LEROY HARRIS, Correctional 

Officers, 

Defendants - Appellees, 

and 

FREDDY COOK; JODY DOZIER, 

Correctional Officers, 

Defendants. 

No. 04-7047 

(D.C. No. 02-CV-617-S) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 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: 04-7047 Document: 010110614704 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Page: 1
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. 

Danny Brewer, a prisoner proceeding prose, appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his 42 U .S.C. § 1983 action for lack of exhaustion of administrative 

remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U .S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Mr. Brewer's complaint includes three claims: (1) that in February 2001, 

guards removed him from his cell with excessive force and beat him; (2) that he 

was denied access to the prison's law library; and (3) that prison officials were 

deliberately indifferent to his safety. The district court found that Mr. Brewer had 

not timely and completely exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to 

any of his claims, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the issue 

of exhaustion, and dismissed the complaint as frivolous. We review the district 

court's decision regarding exhaustion de novo. See Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F .3d 

1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002); see also McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 

(10th Cir. 2001) (holding that a § 1915( e )(2)(B) dismissal is reviewed de novo ). 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires timely and complete 

exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to filing a § 1983 claim concerning 

prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § l 997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-7047 Document: 010110614704 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Page: 2
(2001); Jernigan, 304 F.3d at 1032. Under the applicable policy, Oklahoma 

inmates like Mr. Brewer must engage in a three-step process to exhaust their 

administrative remedies: an informal attempt at resolution at the unit staff level, 

submission of a grievance to the reviewing authority, and appeal of an adverse 

determination to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC). R. Doc. 19, 

Attach. F, at 4-10. Our review of the record satisfies us that Mr. Brewer did not 

properly complete all of these steps for any of his claims. 

With regard to Mr. Brewer's excessive force and deliberate indifference 

claims, the record indicates that Mr. Brewer attempted to bypass the normal 

grievance procedures by filing "emergency" grievances or by skipping steps in the 

procedure. Prison officials refused to accept the grievances outside of the normal 

procedure and directed Mr. Brewer to resubmit his grievance in accordance with 

policy, but he did not do so. With regard to the denial of access claim, the record 

indicates that Mr. Brewer failed to pursue the grievance procedure to its 

conclusion by appealing to ODOC. 

Mr. Brewer argues on appeal that he exhausted his remedies by presenting 

his issues to the warden and ODOC. Simply presenting a defective or noncomplying grievance, however, does not constitute exhaustion of remedies. "An 

inmate who begins the grievance process but does not complete it is barred from 

pursuing a § 1983 claim under PLRA for failure to exhaust his administrative 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-7047 Document: 010110614704 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Page: 3
remedies." Jernigan, 304 F.3d at 1032. "[W]e reject [plaintiff's] assertion that 

inmates do not have to properly complete the grievance process, and they do not 

have to correct deficiencies." Id. ( quotation and alteration omitted; emphasis in 

original). Mr. Brewer may believe that prison officials erred in deciding his 

issues were not emergencies, but that does not mean that he can simply ignore 

their determination and opt out of the grievance procedure. 

Mr. Brewer also argues on appeal that prison officials ignored his 

grievances or intercepted them so that they were never filed. Having reviewed his 

arguments and the record, however, we are not persuaded that prison officials or 

ODOC impermissibly impeded Mr. Brewer from availing himself of the grievance 

process or otherwise prevented him from exhausting his administrative remedies 

with regard to these claims. 

Mr. Brewer's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of 

costs or fees is GRANTED, and he is reminded that he is obligated to continue 

making partial payments until the entire appellate filing fee has been paid. The 

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

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. Henry 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-7047 Document: 010110614704 Date Filed: 04/27/2005 Page: 4