Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07071/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07071-0/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 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR6 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

MICHAEL MACKEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

RON WARD; MIKE MULLIN, 

individually and in their official 

capacity, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 04-7071 

(Eastern District of Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. 03-CV-676-S) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this court 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*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 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: 04-7071 Document: 010110533901 Date Filed: 04/06/2005 Page: 1
Proceeding prose, state prisoner Michael Mackey appeals the district 

court's dismissal of the civil rights claims he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Mackey and four other inmates filed an amended§ 1983 complaint on May 

4, 2004 containing allegations that Defendants deprived them of their 

constitutional rights in violation of the First Amendment by refusing to allow 

them to purchase television sets. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mackey's 

claims, arguing that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies through the 

Department of Correction's Grievance Process (the "Grievance Process"). See 42 

U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ("No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions 

under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined 

in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies 

as are available are exhausted."); Booth v. Churner, 531 U.S. 731, 741 (2001 ). 

Mackey argued that exhaustion was futile because a provision in the Grievance 

Process permits the reviewing authority to place an inmate on a grievance 

restriction if the inmate is found to have abused the process. An inmate may be 

found to have abused the grievance process if, inter alia, there are "repetitive 

grievances [filed] by multiple inmates about the same issue." Mackey argued that 

he was subject to the restriction because two of the other plaintiffs had already 

filed grievances on the same issue. The district court rejected Mackey's argument 

that exhaustion was futile, granted Defendant's motion, and dismissed Mackey's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-7071 Document: 010110533901 Date Filed: 04/06/2005 Page: 2
claims. The court also entered a Rule 54(b) certificate and Mackey brought this 

appeal. 

This court reviews a dismissal for failure to exhaust de novo. See Miller v. 

Menghini, 213 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000). On appeal, Mackey admits that 

he did not exhaust his administrative remedies but asserts, as he did before the 

district court, that restrictions on his use of the Grievance Process render 

administrative remedies unavailable. Mackey's conclusory allegations that 

pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile, however, are insufficient to 

excuse his failure to exhaust. Although we conclude that the district court did 

not err when it dismissed Mackey's claims, the court should have dismissed those 

claims without prejudice. See Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F .3d 1181, 1190 

(10th Cir. 2004) ("If a prisoner does submit a complaint containing one or more 

unexhausted claims, the district court ordinarily must dismiss the entire action 

without prejudice."); Yousefv. Reno, 254 F.3d 1214, 1216 & n. 1, 1222-23 (10th 

Cir. 2001 ). 

Accordingly, we affirm the di~trict court's dismissal of Mackey's claims 

but remand to the district court to vacate its entry of judgment in favor of 

Defendants and to, instead, dismiss Mackey's claims without prejudice. Mackey 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-7071 Document: 010110533901 Date Filed: 04/06/2005 Page: 3
is reminded that he remains obligated to continue making partial payments until 

his appellate filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-7071 Document: 010110533901 Date Filed: 04/06/2005 Page: 4