Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-01419/USCOURTS-ca10-04-01419-0/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 

APR8 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

JAMES R. DUNCAN, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

vs. 

CAPTAIN GIBSON; CAPTAIN 

MIRCHEIA, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-1419 

(D.C. No. 02-F-561 (BNB)) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before KELLY, O'BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges:• 

Plaintiff-Appellant James Duncan, a state inmate appearing pro se, appeals 

from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant 

prison officials in his § 1983 action. 

The parties are familiar with the facts and we need not restate them here. 

• This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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. 

•• After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material 

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 04-1419 Document: 010110533933 Date Filed: 04/08/2005 Page: 1
...... -

Appellate Case: 04-1419 Document: 010110533933 Date Filed: 04/08/2005 Page: 2
Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the district court was correct in 

granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees as Mr. Duncan 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 

532 (2002); Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002). Even 

assuming that Mr. Duncan was affirmatively misled by prison officials that his 

excessive force claim could not be grieved (thereby excusing the exhaustion 

requirement), he has failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact on that 

claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Given the nature of this case, we refuse to 

appoint counsel. See Long v. Shillinger, 927 F.2d 525, 527 (10th Cir. 1991) 

(identifying factors courts consider in deciding whether to appoint counsel in civil 

cases). 

Mr. Duncan's motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees is 

GRANTED, his motion for reconsideration of appointment of counsel is 

DENIED, and the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Mr. Duncan is also 

reminded that he is obligated to make partial payments to this court until the 

entire appellate filing fee is paid in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b ). 

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 04-1419 Document: 010110533933 Date Filed: 04/08/2005 Page: 3
Appellate Case: 04-1419 Document: 010110533933 Date Filed: 04/08/2005 Page: 4