T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of * the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s ; neverthel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e30,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT NI CH OL AS R. BO YD,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 05- 1543 v . (D . o f C o lo .) J OHN D. F ERGUS ON, RI CHARD HEA D ( t ru e n a me u n k n o wn) , J AM ES K EI TH , D O N I CE N EA L, LI SA P A L O MI N O , a n d J E A N N E M. S M I T H, R espon den t s- A pp el l ees. (D . C . N o . 0 5 -Z L W -12 8 6 (B N B ))

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** Pet i t i oner - A ppel l antN i chol as R . B oy d cl ai m s he w as s ubj ect ed t o unl aw ful pr i s on condi t i ons i n vi ol at i on of 42 U . S. C . § 1983. B oy d appea l s t he di s tr i ct court ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai nt . B eca us e w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtt hat-2-

B oy d’ s compl ai nts houl d be di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r e m e d i e s , w e A F F I R M. I. B oy d as s ert s fi ve cl ai m s ar i s i ng fr om hi s i ncar cer at i on att he C orr ect i onal C ent eri n R i fl e, C ol or ado: ( 1) r et al i at i on bypr i s on offi ci al s r es ul t i ng i n tr ans fer to an o ther p ri so n fa cil ityan d d elay ed ex p u n g em en t of a p ri so n d isci p li n ary convi ct i on; ( 2) an unl aw ful 5: 00 a. m . headc ountpol i cy ; ( 3) an unw arr ant ed di s ci pl i naryconvi ct i on forunauthor i zed pos s es s i on of anotheri nm at e’ s l egal w or k; ( 4) i nadequa t e food a nd cant een s ervi ces ; and ( 5) m ai l pol i ci es att he fede r al i m m i gr at i on j ai l thatpr eventhi m m ai l cont actw i th otherpr i s oner s att he fa c ility. T he Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct( PL R A ) r equi r es pr i s oner s t o t i m el yand compl et el yexhaus tavai l abl e admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es befor e fi l i ng s ui tunder42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c o n c e rn in g p ri s o n c o n d itio n s . See 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ); B ooth v. C hur ner , 5 3 2 U .S . 7 3 1 , 7 4 1 (2 0 0 1 ); Je rn ig a n v . S tu c h e ll , 304 F. 3d 1030, 1032 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). In a § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n , the b u rd e n is o n th e p riso n e r to su fficie n tly pl ead e xhaus t i on, w hi ch i ncl udes s uppl y i ng s uppor t i ng document at i on of exhaus t i on, ori n i t s abs ence , des cr i bi ng w i th s peci fi ci typr i s on gr i evanc e p ro c e e d in g s . St eele v. Fed. B ur eau of P r is ons , 3 5 5 F . 3 d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 0 9

– 1 0 (10 th C ir . 2003) . Fi ndi ng thes e r equi r ement s had notbeen metw i th r es pectt o cl ai m s one and four , the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed B oy d’ s compl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce pur s uant-3-

t o 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . T he courtal s o deni ed M r . B oy d’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on. S i nce B oy d ap pears p r o s e , w e m u s t c o n s tru e th e c o m p la in t lib e ra lly. See Ha in e s v . Ke r n e r, 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0

– 2 1 (1 9 7 2 ); Hal lv. B el lm on , 935 F. 2d 1106, 1110 ( 10th C i r . 1991) . W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on r egar di ng exhaus t i on d e n o v o . Jernigan , 3 0 4 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 2 . II. B oy d ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourti ncorr ect l yfound he ha d notexhaus t ed admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w i th r egar d t o hi s fi r s tand fourth cl ai m s . Fi r s t , he as s ert s thathe di d exhaus thi s cl ai m of r et al i at i on bydel ay ed expunge m entas sh o w n b yth e fa c t th a t (1 ) h e w a s g ra n ted re lief o n th is c laim a f

terh e filed h is St ep I and I I gr i evanc es , and, i n anycas e, ( 2) t he pr i s on s t aff deni ed hi m a St ep I I I gr i evanc e form on t he gr ound thats uch r el i ef w as i m pr operfora cl as s i fi cat i on g rie v a n c e . A lth o u g h in th e a b stra c t th is a lleg a tio n m ig h t b e su fficie n t to c o m p ly w ith § 1 9 9 7 e , B o y d ’s a lleg a tio n is u n su p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd . B o y d d id n o t file anygr i evanc es conce r ni ng r et al i at i on bydel ay ed expunge m entt o the pr i s on offi ci al s , butonl ydel ay ed expunge m ent . I tw as t hi s gr i evanc e thatw as addr es s ed and gr ant ed, notthe r et al i at i on cl ai m . Putanotherw ay , pr i s on offi ci al s neverhad th e o p p o rt u n ity to a d d re s s th e re ta lia tio n c la im . See O r d e ra t4 ( n o t i n g t h a tB o yd

“ fa ils to e x p lain w h yh e d id n o t co m p lete th e g rie v a n c e p ro c e d u re w ith re sp e c t to hi s cl ai m t hatpr i s on offi ci al s r et al i at ed aga i ns thi m bydel ay i ng expungementof a-4-

p riso n d isc ip lin a ryc o n v ictio n . T h a t p o rtio n o f M r. B o y d ’s r e talia tio n c laim is unr el at ed t o the cl as s i fi cat i on i s s ue and c oul d have be en r ai s ed i n the gr i evanc e p ro c e d u re .” ). N ordi d B oy d r es ol ve hi s cl ai m r el at i ng t o i nadequa t e food a nd cant een s ervi ces . A gai n, B oy d ar gues he di d exhaus t , i n thata pr i s on- w i de mem o w as ci r cul at ed w hi ch ( 1) gr ant ed r el i ef, and ( 2) s us pended a nyfutur e gr i evanc es for s i x m onths . Pr i s on pol i cyal l ow s a pr i s onerw ho i s gr ant ed r el i ef thr ough a gener al r es pons e t o fi l e a St ep I I I gr i evanc e i f he r emai ns uns at i s fi ed w i th the resu lt . A lth o u g h the re co rd is u n clea r, the b ett er interp retati o n o f th e p ri so n ’s r es pons e i s t hatt he s us pens i on of futur e gr i evanc es appl i ed onl yt o new co m p lai n ts r eg ard ing the p ri so n ’s fo o d an d ca n teen serv ices, no t t o a S tep III gr i evanc e obj ect i ng t o the gene r al r es pons e. B oy d di d notatt empt t o fi l e a St ep II I g ri e v a n c e , b u t o n ly n e w g ri e v a n c e s , i . e. , S tep I g rie v a n c e s, w h ich fe ll w ith in the s cope of

t he s us pens i on. In sh o rt , o u r i n d ep en d en t r ev iew o f th e re co rd re v ea ls th at B o y d ’s compl ai ntdoes notm ake the part i cul ar i zed a l l egat i ons r equi r ed t o s how e x h a u s tio n a s to c la im s o n e a n d fo u r. S e e S tee le , 355 F. 3d at1211 ( s t at i ng that a n a c tio n m u st b e d ism iss e d u n d e r § 1 9 9 7 e w h e re p a rticu lar ize d a v e rm e n ts c o n c e rn in g e x h a u stio n a re a b se n t). B o y d ’s r e m a in in g c laim s w e re a lso p ro p e rly di s m i s s ed underthe t ot al exhaus t i on rul e. T he “PLR A cont ai ns a t ot al exhaus t i on r equi r ement. . . [s uch] thatthe pr es ence of unexha us t ed cl ai m s . . . r equi r e[s ] t he-5-

di s tr i ctcourtt o di s m i s s [the] act i on i n i t s ent i r etyw i thoutpr ej udi ce. ” R os s v. C o u n ty o f B e r n a lillo , 3 6 5 F .3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); s ee 4 2 U. S . C. § 1997e( a) ( s t at i ng “[n] o act i on s hal l be br oughtw i th r es pectt o pr i s on condi t i ons unders ect i on 1983 . . . bya pr i s onerconfi ned i n anyj ai l , pr i s on, orother co rrecti o n al fa cil ityu n ti l suc h ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies as a re a v ail ab le are exhaus t ed”) . B eca us e B oy d di d notcompl et el yexhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es fo r a ll o f

h is c la im s , § 1 9 9 7 e (a ) r e q u ir e s h is c o m p la in t to b e d is m is s e d . Ac c o r d i n g l y , fo rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , we AF F I RM. We f u r th e rDE NY B oy d’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a p auperis. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge