2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-4-2005 

# V azque z v . R agonese P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-1203

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" V a z quez v . R a g one s e " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 735. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/735BPS- 313 NO T P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT NO. 05- 1203

________________ JUAN M
. VA ZQ UE Z, Appe l l ant
v. DA VI D RAG ON ES E; DE VO N B RO W N; KA TH ER INE I RE LAND ; RAYFORD J OHNSON; MARK YAJ CAJ I ; MI CHAEL POW ERS; OF FE I ( UN KN OW

N) ; DA VI S ( UN KN OW

N) ; ST EV EN J OHNS ON ; CH AR LE S L EO NE ; RINA L . TER RY ; GEO RG ES CU (UNK NO WN); CA LD WELL (UNK

NO WN); SC O. CO TT O (UN KN OWN); BA I LE Y ( UN KN OW

N) ; RO Y H EN DR I CK S; SA MU EL AT CH I SO N; J OHN DOE; JANE DOE; BRI AN BONOMO

____________________________________ On Ap peal From

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt Fo r the Distri ct

of New Jer se y ( D. C. Ci v. No. 03- c v- 05596) D istrict Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jero m e B . S im an d le

_______________________________________ Subm i tt e d For

Pos s i bl e Di s m i s s a l Unde r 28 U. S. C. § 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B) or Summ ary

Ac t i on U n d er T h irdC ircu it L A R 2 7 .4 an dI.O .P . 1 0 .6 Jul y 21, 2005 Befo re : REN DE LL , FISHE R andVAN ANT WERP EN , Cir cuit Judg es ( Fi l e d Augus t

4, 2005)

_______________________ OP INI ON

_______________________V azque z’ not i ce of appea l s t at es t hat he i s al s o appea l i ng or der s ent er ed ea r l i eri n t he 1 cas e. W e w i l l aff

i r m t he fol l ow i ng or der s for t he r eas ons s t at ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t : ( 1) or derent er ed Febr uar y9, 2004 ( di s m i s s i ng defe ndant s J udge G ar r et t E
. B r ow n, J r . and D i s t r i ct C l er k Super vi s i ng D eput yC l er k M i chae l Shankl i n, on t he bas i s of j udi ci al i m m uni t yand quas i
-

j udi ci al i m m uni t y ) ; ( 2) or der ent er ed J une 23, 2004 ( di s m i s s i ng cl ai m s agai ns t D avi d R agones e, St even J ohns on, M ar k Y aj caj i and R i na Ter r yon t he gr ounds of abs ol ut e i m m uni t y ; di s m i s s i ng pr ocedur al due pr oces s cl ai m for l ack of a pr ot ect ed l i ber t yi nt er es t , and di s m i s s i ng cl ai m s agai ns t al l defe ndant s i n t hei r offi ci al capa ci t i es ) ; and ( 3) or derent er ed Sept ember 15, 2004 ( deny i ng w i t hout pr ej udi ce V azque z’ m ot i on for appoi nt m entof couns el )
. W e not e t hat on M ay31, 2005, t he D i s t r i ct C our t al s o deni ed V azque z’ m ot i on for r econs i der at i on; how ever , V azque z has n o t app ea led th at ord er. PE R C UR I AM Juan Va z que zappe a l s fr om an or de r of the Uni t e d St at e s Di s tr i c t Court for the Di s tr i c t of Ne w J e r s e y , gr ant i ng de fe ndant s ’ s umm ary judgm e nt

m ot i on and di s m i s s i ng his c ivilri gh ts com

plai nt withou t pre

ju dice fo r fai li ng to exhaust a dm inis tr at ive r em edie s on a l l c l a i m s . W e wi l l a ffi rm the or de r of the Di s tr i c t

Court e nt e r e d De c e m

be r 17, 2004. 1 Th e Pri son L it igat ion R eform Act ( “PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1 99 7e(a ), proh ibit s an inm at e from

bringing a c ivilri gh ts suit al le ging spec ific ac ts of

un consti tuti on alconduct b y p riso no f f icials un til th e in m ate h as ex h au stedav ailab le adm in istrativ e rem ed ies. He r e , the Di s tr i c t

Court de t e rm i ne d that

Va z que zha d “ e xhaus t e d hi s a dm i ni s tr at i ve r e m e di e s onl y

wi th r e s pe c t

t o hi s a l l e gat i ons of r e t a l i at i on, a s s e t forth i n par a gr aph s i x of the Par ti es se ct ion andpara graph twelve of the Stat em ent of C la im s of P la inti ff’s C o m p lain t.” T h e C o urt f

o un dth at V azqu ez “f

ailedto ex h au st h is av ailab le adm in istrativ e rem ed ies w ithresp ect to all o th er claim s raisedh erein , p articu larly h is cl ai m s that he was thre at ened by st aff at [the Garden Stat e You th Co rr ec ti on alFaci li ty].”3

The Di s tr i c t

Court di s m i s s e d the a c t i on wi thout pr e judi c e t o gi ve Va z que zthe
o p p o rtun ity

to sub m it h is claim s to th e p riso nadm in istratio n , o r to ab an d o nh is
un ex h au stedclaim s an dp ro ceedo n ly o nth e ex h au stedclaim s. As Vazquez had no t e xh aust ed avai la ble a dm inis tr at ive r em edie s, the Dis tr ic t C o urt p r o p e r l y d i s mi s s e dth e a c t i o n ; w e w i l l th e r e f o r e a f f i rm.