T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * 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 t he 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 undert he 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 

### A u gu s t4,2006 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 J E R R Y W IL L IA M D IC K E Y , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ant , N o. 05- 4289 v . ( D. C. No . 2 : 9 7 - CV- 7 8 2 - P GC) L I E UT E NANT J . M E RR I CK ; S E RG E ANT M AT T I NGL E Y; LI EUTEN AN T BEEM US; OFFI CER NELSON ; OFFI CER GA M VR OU LAS; a n d OFFI CER R E N F R O , ( D . U t ah)

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c K A Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and 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 ti n the re s o lu tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a)(2). T h e c ase is th ere 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. A ppel l anti s a s t at e pr i s oner , appea r i ng pr o s e, w ho comm ence d thi s act i on in 1 9 9 7 , cla im in g th a t h e w a s a ss a u lted a n d inju re d b yo th e r in m a tes w h ile- 2-

i ncar cer at ed att he Sal tL ake Count yM etr o J ai l . A ppel l antbr oughtthi s act i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983, al l egi ng thatpr i s on empl oy ees knew he w oul d fac e a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm i f expos ed t o otheri nm at es atthe j ai l but d e lib e ra te ly d is re g a rd e d th a t r is k , c a u s in g h im to b e a tta c k e d a n d inju re d . W h en this acti o n w as fir st fil ed , the d istri ct co u rtd ism issed A p p ell an t’ s c o mp l a i n tfo rfa i l u r e t o e x h a u s ta d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s . On a p p e a l , we d e ter m in e d th a t th e re c o rd w a s in su fficie n t to su p p o rt a d ism iss a l fo r fa ilu re to e x h a u s t a n d th u s re v e rs e d a n d re m a n d e d fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . D i ckey v. Kenn ard , 156 F. 3d 1243 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) . Fol l ow i ng r emand, A ppel l antw as al l ow ed t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai nt . T he di s tr i ctcourtthen di r ect ed the named A ppel l ees t o fi l e a Mart i nez r epor taddr es s i ng w hetherA ppel l anthad exha us t ed al l admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . A ppel l ees fi l ed a Mar t i nezr eport , w hi ch w as err oneous l ydocket ed as a M ot i on forSum m aryJ udgm ent . A ppel l antdi d not r es pond t o t he Mar t i nezreport , bu ti nst ead fi l ed a seri es of u nsup po rt ed m oti on s, i ncl udi ng m ot i ons fori nj unct i ve r el i ef. T he di s tr i ctcour tor der ed addi t i onal br i efi ng fr om bot h par t i es , t o w hi ch A ppel l antdi d notr es pond. O n February19, 2003, t he di s t r i ctcour tagai n di s m i s s ed al l butone of A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m s , and g r a n t e d s u mma r yj u d g me n tt o t h e Ap p e l l e e s o n th e o n l ye x h a u s t e d c l a i m. A ppel l antagai n appea l ed t o thi s cour tand w e aga i n r ever s ed, concl udi ng t hatt he aw ar d of s um m aryj udgm enton the one e xhaus t ed cl ai m w as i m pr oper beca us e A ppel l ees neverfi l ed an a ctual s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on and- 3-

c o n s e q u e n tly A p p e lla n t w a s n o t g iv e n a d e q u a te n o tic e o r o p p o rt u n ity to re s p o n d . D i ckey v. Mer r i ck , 90 Fed. A ppx. 535 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . Fol l ow i ng thi s s econd rem an d , the d istri ct co u rtinv it ed A p p ell ee s to fil e a n ac tual m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entand i ns t ruct ed A ppel l antthathe mustr es pond. A ppel l antdi d not r es pond di r ect l y , buti ns t ead r enew ed hi s m ot i on fori nj unct i ve r el i ef, as s er t i ng t hatpr i s on offi ci al s w er e deny i ng hi m acc es s t o hi s l egal m at er i al s . T he di s tr i ct cour tt hen or der ed the U t ah A t t orneyG ener al ’ s offi ce t o i nves t i gat e and f i l e a r epor taddr es s i ng t he l egal acc es s conce rns . A ft err ece i vi ng the r eportand al l ow i ng A ppel l antan oppor tuni tyt o r es pond, the courtdeni ed hi s m ot i on for injun cti v e re li ef. A p p ell an t w as a lso d ir ec ted to resp o n d to A p p ell ee ’s su m m ary ju d g m e n t m o tio n a n d w a s g iv e n a d d iti o n a l re m in d e rs a n d tw ice th e a llo tted six ty day s i n w hi ch t o do s o. A ppel l antdi d notr es pond t o the pendi ng m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent , and the di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed hi s addi t i onal m ot i ons for i nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o A ppel l ees . O r der , 15 ( D . U t ah S ep t. 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 ). A ppel l antcl ai m s t hathe w as att acke d tw i ce byotheri nm at es w hi l e i n the countyj ai l . T he di s t r i ctcourtfound nothi ng i n the r ecor d w her e A ppel l ants t at ed an yinjuries fro m the s ec o n d att ac k . W e the refo re a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to A p p e lle e s o n th e s e c o n d a tta c k . Id . a t1 1 - 1 2 . As t o t he fi r s tatt ack, t he di s t r i ctcourtanal y zed A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m underthe Far m er v. B r ennan , 511 U . S. 825, 837 ( 1994) , t es t . A l though the di s tr i ctcourtfound that- 4-

A p p e llan t sa tisfied th e first p ro n g – sh o w in g th a t th e c o n d iti o n s o f h is i ncar cer at i on pos ed a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm –he fa i l ed t o s at i s fythe s econd pr ong. O r der , at9- 12 ( not i ng thatA ppel l antw as i nvol ved i n the murde r of an i nfl uent i al gang mem berand w as bei ng hel d i n pr ot ect i ve cus t ody ) . T he s econd pr ong of the t es tr equi r es A ppel l antt o es t abl i s h thatthe pr i s on offi ci al w a s d e lib e ra telyin d iffe re n t to h is h e a lth a n d sa fe ty . T h e d istric t co u rt c a re f u lly r evi ew ed A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m butfound thatA ppel l anthad made an i nform ed deci s i on t o r i s k hi s ow n s afe t ybychoos i ng t o go t o the r ecr eat i on y ar d w hen in m a te s “ o n th e b e h a v io r m o d ific a tio n tie r” w e re p re s e n t. Id . at13. A ppel l ant w a s g iv e n th e o p tio n to g o in to th e y a rd u n d e r th o se ter m s a n d w a s s u b se q u e n tly att ac k ed . W e a g ree that A p p ell an t did n o t “sati sfyh is bu rde n o n su m m ary ju d g m e n t o f

se tti n g fo rth sp e c ific fa c ts s h o w in g th a t [ A p p e llee s] w e re d e lib e ra tely i ndi ffe r entt o hi s s afe t yconce r ns . ” Id . at14. W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the br i efs of A ppel l antand A ppel l ees , the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s di s pos i t i on, and the r ecor d on appea l , and fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s a me r e a s o n s a s t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ts t a t e d i n i t s o r d e ro f S e p t e mb e r2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , we AF F I RM the d en ial o f A p p ell an t’ s ad d it ion al claim s an d the g ran t of su m m ary j udgm entforA ppel l ees . W e denyA ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o payt he fi l i ng fee i n- 5-

p a rtial p a ym e n ts a n d o rd e r im m e d iate p a ym e n t o f th e u n p a id b a lan c e d u e o n h is fi l i ng fee . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge