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

### M ar c h 5,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT J OSE EL I AQU I LARAVE L L AVE DA, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. D U K E TE RR ELL , W a r de n, U SPL eave nw or t h, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 3334

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t ri ct of

K ansas ( D . C . N o. 06- C V - 3201) J os e El i A qui l ar - A vel l aveda , appea r i ng pr o s e.

B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL, and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.A s t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed, appel l ant ’ s name has been r efe rr ed t o as 1 “A gui l ar - A vel l aneda ” i n ot herr ecor ds . I n thi s appea l , t he appe l l antus es “ A q u ila r- A v e lla v e d a ,” w h ic h w a s th e n a m e e m p lo y e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . B i ven s v. S i x U nk no w n N am ed A gen t s of F ederal B ureau o f N arcot i cs, 2 403 U . S. 388 ( 1971) . M r . A qui l ar - A vel l aveda ’ s compl ai nts oughtr el i ef unde r42 U . S. C . § 1983; t he A l i en TortC l ai m s A ct , 28 U . S. C . § 1350; and a r ange of fede r al rul es perm i t t i ng a courtt o compel pr oduct i on of document s , depos i t i ons and s ubpoenas . T he di s t r i ctcourtcons trued the compl ai ntas a B i vens act i on. T he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed A qui l ar - A vel l aveda ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d on 3 ap p ea l i n fo rm a p au p eris un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 . W e re m ind M r. A q u il arA vel l aveda t hathe mustcont i nue maki ng paym ent s on hi s appel l at e fi l i ng fee unt i l t he ent i r e bal ance i s pai d. - 2 - J os e El i A qui l ar - A vel l aveda , a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e on a 1 B iv e n s c o m p lain t, se e k s d isc o v e ry , inju n c tiv e re lief, an d d a m a g e s re late d to 2 a lleg a tio n s th a t fe d e ra l p riso n sta ff v io late d h is c iv il righ ts u n d e r th e F irst, F if th and Ei ght h A m endment s t o t he C ons t i tut i on. H e cl ai m s t hatt he w ar den, D uke T err el l , and otherpr i s on offi ci al s i nt er cept ed and de s tr oy ed l egal m at er i al s he n e e d e d to p re p a re fo r h is d ire c t ap p e a l, an d a lleg e s th a t th e yc o n tin u e to se g re g a te hi m w i t houtcaus e and i m pos e l i ght i ng condi t i ons t hatdi s rupthi s s l eep. T he dis t ri ctcou rtdis m i ssed M r. A qu i l ar- A vell aved a’s com plai nt forfai l ure t o ex hau st admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es , buti n l i ghtof a r ece ntrul i ng fr om t he U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt , w e v a c a te a n d re m a n d fo r f u rt h e r c o n s id e ra tio n . M r . A qui l ar - A vel l aveda fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rt fo r th e D istric t o f K a n sa s o n Ju ly1 8 , 2 0 0 6 , alle g in g th a t p riso n o fficia ls v iolated h is ci v il ri g h ts un d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 an d 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 5 0 . T h e c o u rt 3T h e B u re a u o f P riso n s w a s n o t se rv e d w ith th e c o m p lain t at iss u e a n d d id 4 notent eran appe ar ance i n t hi s m at t er . M or eover , t he di s tr i ctcourtdi d notor der t he B ur eau t o ent eran appe ar ance . - 3 - n o ted th a t u n d e r fe d e ra l law , M r. A q u ilar- A v e llav e d a m u st e x h a u st h is admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es befor e br i ngi ng hi s act i on. See 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) ( “N o act i on s hal l be br oughtw i t h 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, oranyotherFeder al l aw , bya pr i s onerconfi ned i n anyj ai l , pr i s on, or o ther c o 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. ”) . T he di s t r i ctcourtr el i ed on ourpr ece denti n St eel e v. Feder al B ur eau of

Pr i s ons hol di ng t hata pr i s oner , t o avoi d di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai nt u n d e r th e P riso n L iti g a tio n R e fo rm A c t (P L R A ), m u st p lea d e x h a u stio n w ith s p e c ific ity. 3 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 1 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). B eca us e M r . A qui l ar - A vel l aveda had noti ncl uded i n hi s pl eadi ngs any info rm ati o n su g g esti n g that h e h ad p u rsue d ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies, the c o u rt or der ed thatM r . A qui l ar - A vel l aveda be gr ant ed tw entyday s t o s uppl ementt he r ecor d. M r . A qui l ar - A vel l aveda t i m el yr es ponded w i th s om e i nform at i on document i ng hi s at t empt s atcompl y i ng w i th the B ur eau of Pr i s on’ s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedypr ogr am, and al s o al l eged thatpr i s on offi ci al s pr event ed hi m fr om compl et i ng t he admi ni s t r at i ve pr oces s . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound the 4 document at i on i ns uffi ci ent . Speci fi cal l y , the courtobs erved thats om e not i ces w er e notdat ed, and found thatM r . A qui l ar - A vel l aveda had notdemonstr at ed that h e h a d so u g h t f

u rth e r a d m in istra tiv e re v iew o f th e w a rd e n ’s a lleg e d fa ilu re to- 4 -

r es pond t o t he pr i s oner ’ s gr i evanc e. T he courtdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i thout pr ej udi ce, concl udi ng t hatM r . A qui l ar - A vel l aveda fai l ed t o compl yw i th the P L R A ’s ex h au sti o n req u ir em en t at4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 9 7 e(a ). In S tee le, w e a d o p ted th e v iew th a t S e c tio n 1 9 9 7 e (a ) re q u ire d a p riso n e r to p lea d a n d d e m o n stra te th a t h e h a d e x h a u ste d h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies p rio r to b r i n g i n g h i s c o m p l a i n ta b o u tp r i s o n c o n d i t i o n s i n c o u r t . 3 5 5 F . 3 d a t1 2 1 0 . We s t at ed thata pr i s onerm us tei t her“att ach a copyof the appl i cabl e admi ni s tr at i ve di s pos i t i ons t o t he 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 t h s peci fi ci t yt he admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ng and i t s out come. ” I d. ( quot at i on, ci t at i ons and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . T he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yr el i ed on t hi s hol di ng i n r evi ew i ng M r . A qui l ar - A vel l aveda ’ s compl ai ntand r eques t i ng addi t i onal i nform at i on aboutw hetherhe had e xhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve rem edies . H ow ever , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas r ece nt l yr ej ect ed thatrul e, hol di ng t hatfai l ur e t o exhaus ti s onl yan affi r m at i ve defens e r athert han a pl eadi ng r equi r ement . J ones v. B ock, ___ U . S. ___, 127 S. C t . 910, 921 ( 2007) ( “ We c o n c l u d e t h a tfa i l u r e t o e x h a u s ti s a n a ffi r ma t i v e d e fe n s e u n d e rt h e P L RA , a n d th a t in m a tes a re n o t re q u ire d to sp e c iallyp lea d o r d e m o n stra te e x h a u stio n in t hei rcompl ai nt s . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , ourpl eadi ng r equi r ementfr om St eel e i s no lo n g e r g o o d law . B e c a u se M r. A q u ilar- A v e llav e d a ’s c o m p lain t w a s s ilen t as to w hetherhe had e xhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es – w hi ch i s acc ept abl e under- 5 -

Jo n e s – th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in re q u e stin g M r. A q u ilar- A v e llav e d a to s u p p le m e n t th e re c o rd o n th a t is s u e . If the co m p lai n t had m ad e itclea r th rou g h M r. A q u il ar-A v ell av ed a’s aff i r m at i ve s t at ement s t hathe had notexhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , t he di s t r i ctcourtcoul d have r ai s ed the exha us t i on ques t i on s ua s pont e, cons i s t ent w i t h 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( c) ( 1) and 28 U . S. C . §§ 1915 and 1915A , and s ought addi t i onal i nform at i on fr om M r . A qui l ar - A vel l aveda . J ones s ugges t s thatdi s tr i ct cour t s can di s m i s s pr i s onercompl ai nt s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m i f i ti s cl ear f ro m th e fa c e o f

th e c o m p lain t th a t th e p riso n e r h a s n o t ex h a u ste d h is ad m inistrati v e rem ed ies. Jo n es, 1 2 7 S . C t. at 9 2 1 . H o w ev er, co u rt s also are obl i gat ed t o ens ur e thatanydefe ct s i n exhaus t i on w er e notpr ocur ed fr om t he act i on ori nact i on of pr i s on offi ci al s . See, e. g. , J erni gan v. Stuchel l , 304 F. 3d 1030, 1032 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( s t at i ng thatal though 42 U . S. C . § 1997e r equi r es i nm at es t o exhaus t“ava i l abl e” a dm i ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , t he “fai l ur e [of pr i s on offi ci al s ] t o r es pond t o a gr i evanc e w i thi n the t i m e l i m i t s cont ai ned i n the g rie v a n c e p o licyre n d e rs a n a d m in istra tiv e re m e d yu n a v a ilab le” ). T h e fa c ts or di nar i l ypl ed i n al l egat i ons conce rni ng pr i s on condi t i ons fr equent l yw i l l not gi ve a de fi ni t i ve ans w eras t o w hethera pr i s onerhas compl et ed hi s i nt ernal gr i evanc e pr oces s orw hetherhe w as t hw ar t ed i n hi s att empt s t o do s o. W e bel i eve thatonl yi n r ar e ca s es w i l l a di s tr i ctcourtbe abl e t o concl ude fr om t he fa ce of

t he compl ai ntt hata pr i s onerhas notexhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve- 6 -

r emedi es and thathe i s w i t houta val i d excus e. W hen a di s tr i ctcourti s gi ven the oppor tuni t yt o addr es s t he exha us t i on ques t i on due t o aff i r m at i ve butnot c o n c lu siv e sta tem e n ts in th e p riso n e r’s c o m p lain t, w e fo llo w th e F o u rth C irc u it i n hol di ng t hat“a di s t r i ctcour tcannotdi s m i s s the compl ai ntw i thoutfi r s tgi vi ng t he in m a te a n o p p o rtu n ityto a d d re ss th e iss u e .” S e e A n d e rso n v . X Y Z C o rr. H e a lth Ser vs . , 407 F. 3d 674, 682 ( 4t h C i r . 2005) . “D i s tr i ctcourt s t aki ng thi s appr oach m u st e x e rc ise c a u tio n . T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r a n in m a te h a s e x h a u ste d h is admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es r equi r es an under s t andi ng of the r emedi es avai l abl e and t hus l i kel yw oul d r equi r e i nform at i on fr om the defendantas w el l as the i nm at e. ” I d. at683 n. 5. W e R EV ER SE and VAC ATE the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derand j udgm ent di s m i s s i ng M r . A qui l ar - A vel l aveda ’ s compl ai nt , and RE M AND t o the di s tr i ct cour tforfur t hercons i der at i on i n acc or dance w i th J ones v. B ock and thi s opi ni on.