Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07060/USCOURTS-ca10-04-07060-0/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 

APR 14 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

ARTHUR JOHN ALLOWAY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

GLYNN BOOHER, Warden over John 

Lilly Correctional Center; REGINALD 

HINES, Warden over Jess Dunn 

Correctional Center; MAR TY 

SIRMONS, Warden over Howard 

McLeod Correctional Center; 

LENORA JORDON, Warden over 

James Crabtree Correctional Center; 

MELINDA GUILFOYLE, Designee 

for the Director of Corrections; 

HENRY, Officer, Corrections officer 

at HMCC; JIM RABON, Sentence 

Administrator for ODOC; BILL 

REYNOLDS, Warden Sirmon's 

Administrative Assistant; MIKE 

PA TE, Hearing Examiner for Warden 

Sirmons at HMCC, 

Defendants-Appel lees. 

No. 04-7060 

(D.C. No. 01-CV-558-P) 

(E. D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 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: 04-7060 Document: 010110534234 Date Filed: 04/14/2005 Page: 1
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. 34.1 (G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Arthur John Alloway brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

asserting nine claims concerning various conditions of his confinement. The 

district court dismissed Mr. Alloway's claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B), and Mr. Alloway appeals. We review a§ 1915(e)(2)(B) 

dismissal de novo, taking the allegations in the complaint as true. McBride v. 

Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001). 

Before we can consider the merits of Mr. Alloway's claims, we must 

determine whether he properly exhausted his administrative remedies. 1 Under the 

In light of our disposition of this appeal, we do not take any position on the 

merits of Mr. Alloway's various claims. We note, however, that Mr. Alloway 

alleges that he suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination when prison officials revoked his earned good-time credits due to 

his non-participation in a sex offender treatment program, and that several courts 

have found that increasing the length of incarceration (including by revoking 

earned credits) may constitute unconstitutional compulsion under McKune v. Lile, 

536 U.S. 24 (2002). See United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1137-38 (9th 

Cir. 2005); Donhauser v. Goard, 314 F. Supp. 2d 119, 132 (N.D.N.Y. 2004); 

Benderv. N.J. Dep 'tofCorr., 812 A.2d 1154, 1159 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 

( continued ... ) 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-7060 Document: 010110534234 Date Filed: 04/14/2005 Page: 2
Prison Litigation Reform Act, complete exhaustion of administrative remedies is a 

mandatory prerequisite to filing a § 1983 claim concerning prison conditions. 

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001); Jernigan v. 

Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002). The district court did not 

explicitly address exhaustion, presumably because it viewed Mr. Alloway's claims 

as frivolous. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2) (allowing a court to dismiss a frivolous 

action without first requiring exhaustion of remedies). 

Our review of the record indicates that Mr. Alloway's complaint may be a 

mixed complaint; in other words, it may contain both exhausted and unexhausted 

claims. Particularly, it appears that Mr. Alloway failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies with regard to several claims, but that he may have 

exhausted his remedies with regard to his claims concerning the loss of earned 

credits (from refusing to admit to his offenses in connection with a sex offender 

treatment program) and his objections to an auditor unilaterally deducting his 

credits. R. Doc. 38, Part III, attachs. 

In this case, we feel that it is appropriate to allow the district court to 

determine in the first instance the exhaustion status of each of Mr. Alloway' s 

claims. Once the district court has made its determination, it should proceed 

1( ... continued) 

2003); but cf Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 769, 778 (2003) (discussing 

when a Fifth Amendment violation is complete and when liability should lie). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-7060 Document: 010110534234 Date Filed: 04/14/2005 Page: 3
accordingly. This court has held that, if a prisoner's complaint is a mixed 

complaint, or if it contains no exhausted claims, an appropriate remedy is 

dismissal of the entire action without prejudice. Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 

365 F.3d 1181, 1189-90 (10th Cir. 2004). In the alternative, the district court 

may allow Mr. Alloway to voluntarily dismiss any unexhausted claims and to 

proceed with any exhausted claims. Cf Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) 

(applying similar remedy in habeas case). 

Mr. Alloway's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is 

GRANTED, and he is reminded that he is obligated to continue making partial 

payments until the entire appellate filing fee has been paid. Mr. Alloway's 

motion for sanctions and his request for counsel on appeal are DENIED. The 

judgment of the district court is REVERSED and REMANDED for further 

proceedings. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Timothy M. Tymkovich 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-7060 Document: 010110534234 Date Filed: 04/14/2005 Page: 4