T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### O c t ob e r3,2006 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 M AR VI N R . WAS HI NGT ON,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 7025 v. ( E . D . O kl ahoma) CO RR E CT I ONS CO RP OR AT I ON OF AM E RI CA ; F I XI CO , Offi c e r ; BO YD, W ar den; C H A R L E S R A Y , A ct i ve W ar den; SE B E L K A , O ffi cer ; and S T O R Y , O fficer,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . CI V- 0 3 - 3 6 4 - WH)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a)(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a 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.-2-

M a rv in R . W a s h in g to n is a n O k la h o m a s ta te p ri s o n e r p ro c e e d in g p ro s e . H e appe al s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai nt , w hi ch al l eged s ever al cl ai m s und er 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3, i ncludi ng that defend ants den i ed h i m du e process w hen he w as fou nd gu i l tyof a p art i cularm i scond uct charge, dis cri m i nated against hi m w i th r egar d t o anotherm i s conductchar ge. H e al s o al l eges r et al i at i on and den i al of h i s equal prot ect i on ri gh t s for hi s fi l i ng of law sui t s, den i al of h i s Fir st A m endmentr i ght s t o a K os herdi etand t o pur chas e pr ay eroi l s fr om an out s i de vendor , cruel and unus ual puni s hm entthr ough us ur i ous comm i s s arypr i ces , and vi ol at i on of the R acke t eerI nfl uence d and C orruptO r gani zat i ons A ct( R I C O ) , 18 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 2 . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and affi rm the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce forfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve re m e d ie s , a s re q u ir e d b y4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). I . BA CK GR OUND M r . W as hi ngt on al l eges var i ous cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons thatar i s e outof di s t i nctevent s . W i th r es pectt o hi s fi r s tcl ai m , he al l eges thaton M ay1, 2002, he w as char ged w i th and found gui l tyof D i s obedi ence t o O r der s forpos s es s i ng a per s onal pai rof R eebok s hoes . H e cont ends thathe w as found gui l tyof the offe ns e and puni s hed w i th the l os s of ea rned cr edi t s and ca nt een r es tr i ct i ons and a decr eas e i n hi s earnercr edi tl evel . M r . W as hi ngt on, w ho des cr i bes hi m s el f as-3-

“ b lac k ” in m a te, a lleg e s th a t o th e r C a u c a sia n in m a tes w h o w e re c h a rg e d w ith m is c o n d u c t h a d th e c h a rg e s d is m is s e d . Second, M r . W as hi ngt on al l eges thaton February19, 2003, O ffi cerFi xi co i s s ued hi m a mi s conductforD i s obedi ence t o O r derfors m oki ng. M r . W as hi ngt on c o n ten d s th a t th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e o f th e o ffe n se a n d th a t a C a u c a sia n in m a te w h o w a s s m o k in g re c e iv e d n o m isc o n d u c t. A s t o hi s thi r d cl ai m , M r . W as hi ngt on al l eges thatas a “Bl ack H ebr ew Is ra lis t [ s ic ]” h e w a s a rb itr a ri ly d e n ie d a K o s h e r d ie t a n d th e u s e o f p ra y e r o ils . See Re c . v o l . I , d o c . 2 5 , a t7 ( a me n d e d c o mp l a i n tfi l e d Ap r . 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 ) . He cont ends thathe w as i nform ed thatonl yI s l ami s t s and W i cca ns coul d r ece i ve p ra y e r o ils a n d th a t o n lyJe w s c o u ld b e se rv e d a K o sh e r d iet. Fi nal l y , M r . W as hi ngt on cont ends thatthe pr i s on gr ocery ’ s m or e than 300 per centm arkup of ce r t ai n i t ems vi ol at ed hi s E i ghth A m endmentr i ghtt o be fr ee from cruel and un usual pun i shm ent, as w el l as the st at e and fede ral usuryl aw s, a n d RI CO . T h e d efen d an ts fil ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, all eg ing that M r. W a sh in g to n h a s fa iled to e x h a u st h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a s c e rta in o f h is cl ai m s under42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the mot i on and deni al M r . W as hi ngt on’ s s ubs equentm ot i on forcl ar i fi cat i on.-4- I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e re v iew d e n o v o a d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f a c o m p lain t fo r fa ilu re to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . P at elv. Fl em i ng , 4 1 5 F .3 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e a c c e p t th e a lleg a tio n s in th e c o m p lain t as tru e , an d m a k e a ll re a s o n a b le fa c tu a l in fe re n c e s in M r. W a s h in g to n ’s fa v o r. Mar t i nezv. G ar den , 4 3 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A d d iti o n a lly , w e m u st c o n stru e h is a rg u m e n ts lib e ra lly b e c a u s e h e is p ro s e . Id. ; Haines v. Kerner, 404 U . S. 519, 5 2 0 (19 7 2 ). T he Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct( “PL R A ”) pr ovi des that“[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 of thi s t i t l e

. . . u n t i l s u c h a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s a s a r e a v a i l a b l e a r e e x h a u s t e d . ” 4 2 U. S . C. § 1997e( a) . T he pr i s onerm us texhaus tal l admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e eve n i f admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocedur es “w oul d appea rt o be fut i l e atpr ovi di ng the ki nd of r emedys ought . ” Je rn ig a n v . S tu c h e ll , 3 0 4 F .3 d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). “A n i nm at e w ho begi ns the gr i evanc e pr oces s butdoes notcompl et e i ti s barr ed f ro m p u rsu in g a § 1 9 8 3 c laim u n d e r P L R A fo r fa ilu re to e x h a u st h is admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . ” Id. at1032. A s the d istri ct co u rtex p lai n ed , the D av is C o rrecti o n al F ac il ity , w h ere M r. W a sh in g to n w a s h o u se d d u rin g th e a lleg e d v io latio n s, h a s a th re e tier a p p ro a c h to r es ol vi ng i nm at e compl ai nt s . T o exhaus tavai l abl e r emedi es atthe fa ci l i ty , an in m a te m u st (1 ) a ttem p t to re so lv e m a tters in fo rm a lly , (2 ) file a g rie v a n c e w ith-5-

th e fa c ility, a n d (3 ) a p p e a l a n yu n re s o lv e d m a tte r t o th e fa c ility h e a d . See R ec. vol . I I , doc. 66, E x. A ( A ffi d. of D avi d B r ow n, dat ed M ay27, 2005) “T o sati sfythe P L R A ’s ex h au sti o n req u ir em en t, a p ri so n er m u st do m o re than al l ege thathe has exhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . T o [s how exhaus t i on] , a pr i s onerm us t. . . att ach acopyof the appl i cabl e admi ni s tr at i ve di s pos i t i ons t o the compl ai nt , or , i n the abs ence of w r i t t en document at i on, des cr i be w i th s peci fi ci tythe admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ng and i t s out come. ” Si m m at v. U. S. B ur eau of

P r is ons , 413 F. 3d 1225, 1237 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks , ci t at i on, and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . T he defendant s i ndi cat e that M r . W as hi ngt on exhaus t ed hi s pr ay eroi l s cl ai m , and fi l ed gr i evanc es butdi d not exhaus thi s s m oki ng and us ur i ous pr i ci ng cl ai m , and di d notappea rt o i ni t i at e the admi ni s tr at i ve pr oces s forhi s othercl ai m s . “The pol i ci es of the PL R A thus stro n g lysu p p o rt a re a d in g o f th a t sta tu te th a t re q u ire s in m a tes to e x h a u st f u llya ll o f th e ir c laim s b e fo re fili n g in fe d e ra l co u rt. If a p riso n e r d o e s s u b m it a c o m p lain t co n tain in g o n e o r m o re u n e x h a u ste d c laim s, th e d istric t co u rt o rd in a rily m us tdi s m i s s the ent i r e ac t i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce. ” R os s v. C ount y of B ernal i l l o, 3 6 5 F . 3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 9 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce. W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed M r . W as hi ngt on’ s appel l at e br i ef, the di s tr i ct court ’ s or der , and the r ecor d on appea l , and agr ee thatM r . W as hi ngt on has fai l ed to e x h a u st a ll o f

h is a v a ilab le a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies . N o w h e re in th e re c o rd is-6-

ther e evi dence thatM r . W as hi ngt on pr oper l yus ed the ava i l abl e pr i s on gr i evanc e p ro c e s s to m a k e a n d e x h a u s t a ll o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s . I I I . CO NC L US I ON A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l fo r fa ilu re to exhaus tpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) w i thoutpr ej udi ce.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge