T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctri nes of * law o f th e c a s e , res ju dica ta and col l at er ales t oppel . T he courtgeneral lydi s favor s the ci t ati on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an orderand j udgm entm aybe cit ed under the t erm s and conditi ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED Unite d State s C ourt o f Appe als Te nth Circ uit 

### Ju ly 31, 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 CH AR L E S RO UT S ON, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. S CO T T V. CA RV E R; CH RI S T I NE M I TCH ELL; AN NA BELLE BR OUGH; L OWEL L H. CL AR K; BEVE RLY T HOM AS; CRAI G BURR; DE NNI S S OR E NS E N; BR ANDON BU RR ; L AUR A M UM F OR D; DE VON BL OOD; GAR Y L AR S ON; HE I DI J OHNS ON; WADE GE E ; T HOMAS HAZ E N; L I NDA P E T E RS ON; P OL L Y M AR T I NE Z ; M AR S HA PETE RSON ; W ESLE Y ARNOLDSON; CI NDA CARTE R; L A W F IR M O F O T T O & M C B R ID E , D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 4304 ( D . U t ah) ( D. Ct . No . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 7 7 1 - P GC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui t Judg es.W e c o n s tru e p ro s e p le a d in g s lib e ra lly. Ledbetterv. C i t y of Topeka, Kan . , 318 1 F . 3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). In th e c o n clus iono f th e d istri ct co urt ’s dism issal ord er, it pro v ides : “IT IS 2 T H E R E F O R E O R D E R E D that this co m p lain t i s d ism issed . ” (R . , D o c. 12 at 3.) N orm al ly , i f a c ourtfai l s t o s peci fyw hethera di s m i s s ali s w i th orw i thoutpr ej udi ce, the di s m i s s al“operat es as an adj udi cati on on the mer i t s . ” F ED . R . C IV . P . 4 1 (b ); see al so Fi t zge ra ld v . Co rr. Co r

p . o f A m. , 4 0 3 F .3 d1 1 3 4 , 1 1 3 9 (1 0 thC ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H o w e v e r, a d is m is s a l b a s e do nla c ko f e x h au s tio ns h o u ldo rd in ari ly b e w ith o u t p re ju d ic e . Fitzge ra ld , 4 0 3 F . 3 dat1 1 3 9 . N e v e rth e l e s s , “ [ u ] n d e rc e rt a i nc i r c um s t an c e s , ad i s tri c tc o urtm ay, n o tw ith stan d in g f

a ilure to e x h au st, p ro c e e dto th e m e rits o f th e c laim an dd ism iss w ith pr ej udi ce i f i tconcludes a partyw oul d be uns ucce s s fuleven abs entthe exhaus ti on i s s ue. ” I d. ; s ee42 U . S . C . § 1 99 7e(c) (2) (“In the even tthat a cl ai m i s, oni t s face, frivo l ou s,

- 2- A ft er exami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l y t hat or al ar gum ent w oul d not m at er i al l y as s i s t t he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 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. C har l es R out s on, a U t ah s t at e i nm at e appe ar i ng pro se , file d a 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 19 83 com plai nt i n the U nit ed S t at es D i st ri ct C ou rt for t he D i st ri ct of U t ah ag ai nst v a rio u s p riso n o fficia ls a lleg in g th e y v io late d h is E ig h th a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts w h e n th e y p lac e d h im in a sp e c ial h o u sin g u n it an d re d u c e d h is p r i v i l e g e s b a s e d o n h i s r e f u s a l t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a s u b s t a n c e - a b u s e p r o g r a m. He al s o al l eged a vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght of ac ces s t o t he cour t s . A l t hough R out s on e x h a u ste d h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies c o n c e rn in g h is E ig h th a n d F o u rte e n th A m endment cl ai m s , he di d not do s o on hi s r i ght of ac ces s cl ai m . T her efor e, fo ll o w ing circu it p rec ed en t, the d ist ri ct co u rt co rrectl y d ism issed R o u tson ’s compl ai nt w i t hout pr ej udi ce. S e e R o ss v . C o u n ty o f B e rn a lil lo , 365 F. 3d 1181, 2m al i ci ous , fai l s t o s t at e a c l aim upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be grant ed, ors eeks m onet aryr el i ef

fr om a def

endantw ho i s i m m une from s uch r el i ef, the courtm aydi s m i s s the underlyi ng c laim w ith o u t f

irst re qu irin g th e e x h au stio no f a dm in istrativ e re m e d ies .”). T h e re f o re , in fai lur e t o exhaus tcas es w her e the courtfai l s t o s peci fyw hetheri t s di s m i s s ali s w i th or w i thoutpr ej udi ce, “w e vac at e and remand forthe courtbel ow t o ei therm odi fyi t s opi ni on to sp e c if yth at th e d ism iss a l is w ith o u t p re ju d ice , o r m ak e ad e term in atio no nth e m e rits w i thi n i t s perm i s s ibl e s cope to do s o under42 U . S. C . § 1997e( c) ( 2) . ” Fitzge ra ld, 403 F. 3d at1140. W hi l e the di s tr i ctcourtdi d noti ndi cate in i t s conclus orys t at ementthatthe d ism iss a l w a s w ith o u t p re ju d ice , in th e se n ten c e im m e d iate lyp re c e d in g th at statem e n t, it qu o t e dth e f

o l l o wi n g f

r o m R o ss v . Co u n ty o

f B e rn a lillo , 3 6 5 F . 3 d1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ): “ T h e p re se n c e o f [ any ] un e x h au ste dc laim s in[ P lain tiff’s] c o m p lain t re qu ire [ s th is C ourt ] t o di s m i s s hi s acti on i n i t s enti r etyw i thoutpr ej udi ce. ” (I d. at3 . ) C o n s e qu e n t ly, w e conc lude the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s alw as w i thoutpr ej udi ce and a r emand for c l ari f i c ati o ni s unn e c e s s ary . M o r e o v e r , a l th o u g hth e d i s mi s s a lwa s wi th o u tp r e j u d i c e , we h av e juri s d ic tio no v e r th is ap p e a l b e c au s e th e d is m is s a l d is p o s e do f th e e n tir e c a s e . A m az on, I

nc. v. D ir tCam

p, I nc. , 2 7 3 F .3 d1 2 7 1 , 1 2 7 5 (1 0 thC ir . 2 0 0 1 ).

- 3- 1189 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng t hat Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R efor m A ct cont ai ns a t ot al exhaus t i on r equi r ement ; t her efor e, t he pr es ence of an une xhaus t ed cl ai m i n an inm ate’s co m p lai n t r eq u ir es d ism issal w it h o u t prejud ice o f th e e n ti re c o m p lai n t) . O n appea l , R out s on does not cl ai m any er r or on t he par t of t he di s t r i ct cour t . I n fac t , he conc edes t he cour t appl i ed t he pr oper l aw and i t s deci s i on w as w a rra n ted . R a th e r, R o u tso n in fo rm s u s h e w ish e s to re d a c t th e u n e x h a u ste d c laim f ro m h is c o m p lain t. W ith th e u n e x h a u ste d c laim re d a c ted , h e sta tes w e sh o u ld r ever s e and r emand t o al l ow hi m t o pr ocee d on t he exha us t ed cl ai m s . H e i s t oo l at e — R out s on s houl d have a m ended hi s compl ai nt pr i or t o i t s di s m i s s al i n t he di s t r i ct cour t . I n t he al t er nat i ve, R out s on coul d have f i l ed a ne w s ui t w i t hout t he u n e x h a u s te d c la im in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . B eca us e “i t l acks an ar guabl e bas i s i n ei t her l aw or fac t , ” R out s on’ s appea lT he di s tr i ctcourtdi d notacton R out s on’ s m oti on t o pr ocee d ifp o nap p e a l. 3

- 4- is D IS M IS S E D a s f

ri v o lo u s . Thomps on v. G i bs on , 2 8 9 F . 3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 2 (10 th C ir . 2002) . H i s m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a p auperi s ( ifp ) o n a p p e a l i s DE NI E D AS M O O T . H e w as gr ant ed per m i s s i on t o pr ocee d ifp i n t he di s t r i ct cour t . Si nce t he d istric t co u rt d id n o t ce rtify i n w riting th a t th e a p p e a l w a s n o t tak e n in g o o d fa ith (28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(a) (3) ) hi s ifp s t at us cont i nues i n t hi s cour t w i t hout fur t her o rde r. See F ED . R . A PP . P. 24( a) ( 3) . H e i s r emi nded t o cont i nue maki ng par t i al

3 p a y m e n ts o f

h is a p p e lla te filin g fe e u n til th e e n tir e b a la n c e is p a id . R o u tso n h a s a c c u m u late d tw o strik e s in th is m a tter. T h e d ism iss a l o f th is app eal as fr i vo l ou s coun t s as one st ri ke u nd er 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(g). H e al so a c c u m u la te d a s tr ik e a s a re s u lt o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l. See St eel e v. F ed. B ur eau of

P r i s ons , 355 F. 3d 1204, 1213 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( a di s m i s s al bas ed o n lack o f e x h au sti o n m ay co n sti tute a stri k e fo r pu rpo ses o f § 1 9 1 5 (g)) , ce rt. deni ed , 54 3 U . S . 92 5 (200 4). R ou t son is rem i nd ed that i f he a ccrues t hree st ri kes, he w i l l no l onger be abl e t o pr ocee d ifp in an y civil acti o n fil ed in a fed era l cou rt u n le s s h e is in im m in e n t d a n g e r o f s e ri o u s p h y s ic a l inju ry. E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui t J udge