A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti 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, orcol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### A p ril24,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT

J A M ES A . CH I LD S, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J O E O RT I Z; BA RR Y PA RD U S; DE NNI S BU RB ANK; RA NDY FOSHEE; W I LLI AM RI CH TER; T. KE E L E R; L T . HOL CO M B; DONNA M UR P HY, e ta l . ; M . WI NDE N; STEVE OW ENS; DO NA LD M c CA LL; J . BR OWN; S GT . S I M M ONS ; K. M E Y E R ; PH IL M A R M A L E JO ; JU L IE RU S S E L L ; J AS ON E L S E ; ANT HONY DECE S ARO; KAREN COOPE R; M I CH AE L AR E L L ANO; S HE RY L HE BE RT ; R. T WI L L E GE R; L . A. RA M I REZ, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1368 ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - c v - 7 4 1 - Z L W) ( C ol or ado)



### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T *Be causehe is proce edingpro se, wereview Mr. Child's f ilings liberally . See 1 Haines v. Kerner , 4 04 U. S. 5 19 , 5 20 -2 1 ( 19 72 ); Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).

- 2- B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

J ames A . C hi l ds , a pro se s t at e pr i s oner , br oughta compl ai nti n the di s t r i ct 1 co u rtch all en g ing v ariou s co n d it ion s o f h is co n fin em en t. T h e d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed hi s cl ai m s forfai l ur e t o demonstr at e exha us t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . W e vac at e the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s or derand r emand forfur ther c o n s id e ra tio n . M r . C hi l ds , a pr i s oneri n cus t odyof the C ol or ado D epart m entof C or r ect i ons , fi l ed a m ul t i - cl ai m compl ai nti n di s tr i ctcourtchal l engi ng the condi t i ons of hi s i m pr i s onm ent . Pr i s oner s m us texhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es b e fo re c h a lle n g in g p ri s o n c o n d itio n s in fe d e ra l c o u rt . See 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). R el y i ng on ourhol di ng i n St eele v. Fed. B ur eau of P r is ons , 355 F. 3d 1204, 1211 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ), w h ich re q u ire s th a t p riso n e rs d e m o n stra te e x h a u stio n in th e ir compl ai ntby“ei t herat t ach[ i ng] copi es of admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs or d esc ri b [in g ] th eir dispo sit ion w ith sp ec ifi city , ” the d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed M r. C h ild s “ fa ile d to d e s c ri b e w ith s p e c ific ity th e e x h a u s tio n o f e a c h o f h is c la im s ,” and “di s m i s s ed [M r . C hi l ds ’ cl ai m s ] forfai l ur e t o demonstr at e exha us t i on of the .

. . admi ni s t r at i ve- gr i evanc e pr ocedur e. ” See R e c ., v o l. I , d o c . 2 2 a t 5 . T he Supr eme C our tr ece nt l yhel d fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi esB eca us e M r . C hi l ds demonstr at ed the exi s t ence of “a r eas oned, 2 nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton t he l aw and the fa ct s i n s uppor tof the i s s ues r ai s ed on appea l , ” McIn to s h v . U.S . P a r o le C o m m 'n , 1 1 5 F . 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 2 -13 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ), w e gr anthi s r eques tt o pr ocee d ifp .

- 3- as r equi r ed by42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) i s an affi r m at i ve defens e and nota pl eadi ng re q u ir e m e n t. Jones v. B ock , 127 S. C t . 910, 921 ( 2007) . W e have s i nce re c o g n ize d th a t Jon es overrul ed the pl eadi ng r equi r ementout l i ned i n S tee le , the b a s is fo r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f M r. C h ild s ’ c o m p la in t. See A qu i larA v e lla v e da v . Te rr e ll , 4 7 8 F .3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 2 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). A s w e sa id in Fr eem an v. Watki ns , 479 F. 3d 1257, 1260 ( 10th C i r . 2007) , “i ti s no l onger appr opr i at e fort he di s t r i ctcourtt o r equi r e an a ffi r m at i ve s how i ng of exha us t i on a t th is s ta g e o f

th e c a s e .” I n l i ghtof the r ece ntrul i ngs di s cus s ed above , w e VAC ATE t he di s tr i ct cour t ’ s or derand j udgm entof di s m i s s al , and RE M AND t o the di s tr i ctcourtfor further proceedings. 2 ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge