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

R O B E R T W . R O S B E R G , J R ., P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. JO E O R T IZ , E x ec u ti v e D ir ec tor, C D O C ; G A R Y W A T K I N S, W ar den, Fr e mon tCorr . Fa c . ; DR . CH AR LES O LI N , D i r . M e nt a l H e a l t h Sv c s . , FCF; R O N A L D W IL K E S , C ap tai n /L au n d ry Su p e r v i s o r , FCF ; a n d M ATT G OM EZ, Sgt . / Lau nd r ySup e r vi s or , FCF, i ndi vi dual l yand i n t hei roffi ci al capac i t i es, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1278 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - c v - 0 2 4 9 8 - Z L W)

( C ol or ado)



### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.Be causehe is proce edingpro se, wereview Mr. Rosberg ' s filings 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- R ober tW . R os ber g, J r . , a pro se s t at e pr i s oner , br oughta compl ai nti n t he 1 di s t r i ctcourtas s ert i ng a vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 and 28 U . S. C . § 1343. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed hi s cl ai m s for fai 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 d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r 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. R o sb erg , a C o lorad o stat e p ri so n er, fil ed an ac ti o n in d istri ct co u rt al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of hi s E i ght h A m endmentr i ghtt o be fr ee f r om cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent . T he courtnot ed thatpr i s oner s m us texhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve re m e d ie s 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 . § 1997e( a) . T he courtt hen ci t ed ourhol di ng i n St eele v. Fed. B ur eau of P r is ons , 3 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 1 1 (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 exhaus t i on i n t hei rcompl ai ntby“ei theratt ach[ i ng] copi es of admi ni s tr at i ve p ro c e e d in g s o r d e sc rib [ in g ] th e ir d isp o sitio n w ith sp e c ificity .” T h e c o u rt h e ld M r. R o sb erg “fail ed to ex h au st th e [ C o lorad o D ep artm en t of C o rrecti o n ]’s g ri ev an ce p roc ed u re,” an d d ism issed h is acti o n o n tho se g rou n d s. R ec . , v o l. I, d o c . 1 4 a t 3 . See als o i d. d o c. 16 (de n y ing M r. R o sb erg ’s m o ti o n to rec o n side r). 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 es 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- 3-

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. R o s b e rg ’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 .” B eca us e M r . R os ber g has demonstr at ed the exi s t ence of “a r eas oned, 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 ), we GRANT hi s r eques tt o pr ocee d ifp . 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 t r i ctcourt ’ s or derand j udgm entof di s m i s s al , and RE M AND t o the di stri ctcou rtfor further proceedings. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge