2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-4-2005

Vazquez v. Ragonese

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-1203

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Vazquez v. Ragonese" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 735.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/735
BPS-313 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-1203

________________

JUAN M. VAZQUEZ,

 Appellant

 v.

DAVID RAGONESE; DEVON BROWN; KATHERINE IRELAND;

RAYFORD JOHNSON; MARK YAJCAJI; MICHAEL POWERS;

OFFEI (UNKNOWN); DAVIS (UNKNOWN); STEVEN JOHNSON;

CHARLES LEONE; RINA L. TERRY; GEORGESCU (UNKNOWN);

CALDWELL (UNKNOWN); SCO. COTTO (UNKNOWN);

BAILEY (UNKNOWN); ROY HENDRICKS; SAMUEL ATCHISON;

JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; BRIAN BONOMO

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-05596)

District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

_______________________________________

Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action

Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 21, 2005

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed August 4, 2005)

_______________________

 OPINION

_______________________
 Vazquez’ notice of appeal states that he is also appealing orders entered earlier in the 1

case. We will affirm the following orders for the reasons stated by the District Court: (1)

order entered February 9, 2004 (dismissing defendants Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. and

District Clerk Supervising Deputy Clerk Michael Shanklin, on the basis of judicial

immunity and quasi-judicial immunity); (2) order entered June 23, 2004 (dismissing

claims against David Ragonese, Steven Johnson, Mark Yajcaji and Rina Terry on the

grounds of absolute immunity; dismissing procedural due process claim for lack of a

protected liberty interest, and dismissing claims against all defendants in their official

capacities); and (3) order entered September 15, 2004 (denying without prejudice

Vazquez’ motion for appointment of counsel). We note that on May 31, 2005, the

District Court also denied Vazquez’ motion for reconsideration; however, Vazquez has

not appealed that order.

PER CURIAM

Juan Vazquez appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey, granting defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissing

his civil rights complaint without prejudice for failing to exhaust administrative remedies

on all claims. We will affirm the order of the District Court entered December 17, 2004.1

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), prohibits an

inmate from bringing a civil rights suit alleging specific acts of unconstitutional conduct

by prison officials until the inmate has exhausted available administrative remedies.

Here, the District Court determined that Vazquez had “exhausted his administrative

remedies only with respect to his allegations of retaliation, as set forth in paragraph six 

of the Parties section and paragraph twelve of the Statement of Claims of Plaintiff’s

Complaint.” The Court found that Vazquez “failed to exhaust his available

administrative remedies with respect to all other claims raised herein, particularly his

claims that he was threatened by staff at [the Garden State Youth Correctional Facility].” 
3

The District Court dismissed the action without prejudice to give Vazquez the

opportunity to submit his claims to the prison administration, or to abandon his

unexhausted claims and proceed only on the exhausted claims.

As Vazquez had not exhausted available administrative remedies, the District

Court properly dismissed the action; we will therefore affirm.