FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 17, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 00 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 15 5- CV-CDL-4 ARTHUR GOULD, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us BRIAN OWEN S, Co m m is si on er, L. GAL E BUCKNER, Paro le Bo ardCh ai r, H. DW IGHT HAMRICK, W ard en , Rut le dg e St at e Pri so n, DEBRA SLAUGHTER, RON DEVALINGE R, Co un se lo r, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J un e 1 7, 2 01 0)Befo re CARNES, M ARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Arth urGou ld , an i nm at e in Geor gi a’s st at e p ris on syste m , su eda nu m be r of pr is on off ic ia ls un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 fo r vi ol at in g h is rig ht s u nd er the U.S. Co ns ti tu ti on . On the de fen da nt s’ m ot io n, the di st ric t co urt d is m is se d t he

1 co m pl ai nton th e g ro un ds th atGou ldha d fa il edto ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as requi redby the Pri so n Li ti ga ti on Refo rm Act, 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a) , an d t ha t h e h adothe rwis e fai le d t o s ta te an y vi ab le cla im s fo r rel ie f, se e 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A( b) (1 ); F ed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(6 ). Gou ldno w arg ue s t ha t h is act io n was im pr op erl y tra ns ferr edto an ot he r ve nu e, th atth e d is tri ctjud ge fai le d t o e ng ag e in a p le na ry rev ie w of t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , th atth e co urt s ho ul d h av e al lo wedhi m to am en d h is co m

pl ai nt , andth atth e co urt erredby gr an ti ng th e d efen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s.

The de fenda

nts named in Gould’s Amende d and Supplemental Complaints were J ames 1 Donald, Commissi oner of the Georg ia Depa

rtment of Corre ctions; Gale B uckner , Chair of the State Boa rd of Par dons and Paroles; Warde n Dwight Hamrick; Superintende nt Debra Slaughte r; L ieutenant Charles Fle ming; Counselor Ron DeV aling er; “ Mental He alth Direc tor” Pat Wil liams; and Deputy

Wardens B rown Ke y s and Jeffer y J eff erson. On a

ppeal, B rian Ow ens wa s automatically

substitut ed for

J ames Dona ld as Commis sioner in his officia l capa city . SeeFe d. R. App. P. 43(c)( 2). Although Gould maintains that he sued a ll of the defe ndants in their individual capa cities, any

substitut ion error

was ha rmless bec ause G ould did not object to the mag istrate judge ’s re commendation that his claims ag ainst Donald be dismissed. 2I

The ev en ts gi vi ng ris e to Gou ld ’s com pl ai ntbe ga n wh enhe was a n i nm at e atRu tl ed ge Sta te Pri so n. Duri ng th e co ur se of awork -rel eas e p ro gr am at a 2 tra ns it io na l fa ci li ty, Gou ldsaw a no th er i nm at e “ ro b” a ne arb y bu si ne ss . Butwhen he rep orte d t he cri m e to de fen da nt s DeVa li ng er, Fl em in g, an d S laug ht er, the y warn edhi m

to “ le av e italo ne ” b ecau se th e b us in es s o wne r was no t wh it e an d be cau se th ey

di d n otwantth e tr an si ti on al faci li ty to “ lo okba d.” DeVali ng er an d Fl em in g l at er re pe at edth atwarn in g, an d DeVa li ng er thr eat en edto ha ve hi s fr ie nd s on th e Par ol e Bo ardm ak e li fe “ ha rd ” fo r Gou ld . Gou ldsu cces sf

ul ly com pl et edth e work- rel eas e p ro gr am , bu t the Paro le Bo ard —d es pi te it s p rev io us ten ta ti ve de ci si on to pa ro le hi m if h e co m

pl et edth e pr og ram —d en ie d h is reque stforpa ro le . Gou ldlea rn edof t he Bo ard ’s dec is io n fro m Fle m in g a ndsev eral ot he r of fic ia ls aft er b ei ng de ta in edwitho utex pl an at io n in a ho ld in g c el l fo r ov er fo urho ur s. Go ul d was th entak enba ck to Ru tl ed ge Sta te Pri so n, wh ere o ffi ci al s re fu se d t o re tu rnhi s s ho es an d o th er p ers on al pro pe rty. Whe n h e as ke d d efen da nt s Hamric k, Keys, an d Wil li am s wh y he ha d b eensen t

For our purpose s here , we a ssume that Gould’s alleg ations are true. Powell v. Lennon , 2 914 F.2d 1459, 1463 ( 11th Cir. 1990) (“The alleg ations in the complaint must be taken as true for purposes of the motion to di smiss.”). Be cause Gould is a pro selitigant, we also construe his filings be fore us and in the district court liber ally . Timson v. Sampson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 ( 11th Cir. 2008); Tannenbaum v. United States , 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 ( 11th Cir. 1998). 3ba ckto pri so n, the y refu se d t o t el l h im , andhe was p la ced—ag ai n wi th ou t ex pl an at io n— fir stin so li ta ry co nf in em en t an d t he n i n the wardres erv edfor m en ta ll y il l p ris on ers . His r eque stfora he ari ng was d en ie d. 3 Acco rd in g t o Go ul d, v io le nc e an d s ex ua l as saul t wer e co m m onpl ace o n t he m en ta l-h eal th wardbe cau se pri so n o ffi ci al s re fu se d t o p ro te ctth e m en ta ll y il l in m at es fro m

each ot he r. Mo reo ve r, of fic ia ls on th e wardwou ldrou ti ne ly thre at en to gi ve th e in m at es in cap aci ta ti ng “ sh ot s” th atwou ldlea ve th em vu ln erab le to at ta ck . In p art ic ul ar, the off ic ia ls th reat en edGou ldwith t he se sh ot s af te r he refu se d t o aba nd on th e cl ai m s i n t hi s l aws ui t. Inhi s co m

pl ai nt , Gou ldall eg edth e d efen da nt s h adsen t h im to th e m en ta l- 4 he al th wardin ret al ia ti on forrep orti ng th e cri m e atth e tr an si ti on al faci li ty. He al so co m pl ai ne d t ha t the de fen da nt s h adin te rfer edwith h is ab il it y to pro se cu te hi s cl ai m s i n fe de ral co urt, re fu se d t o re tu rnhi s p ers on al pro pe rty, anddi sc riminat ed ag ai ns t h im

be cau se he was b la ck , a Ro m anCatho li c, an d m en ta ll y di sabl ed .

See V itek v. J ones , 445 U.S. 480, 494 (1980) (“ [T] he stig matizi ngconseque nces of a 3 transfe r to a menta l hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment, coupled with the subjec tion of the prisoner

to mandatory

behavior modification as a tr eatment f or mental illness, constitute the kind of deprivations of liberty that require s proce dural prote ctions.”). Gould’s orig inal complaint came in the form of a letter a ddresse d to the chief district 4 judge for the N orthern D istrict of Georg ia. Afte r the a ction was tra nsfer red to the Middle District of Ge org ia, Gould filed a formal a mended c omplaint and a “supple mental” c omplaint. W e re fer to these two docume nts, collectively , as his “complaint.” 4Fi na ll y , Gou ldid en ti fie d aho stof p ro cedur al erro rs in th e co ur se of h is pa ro le

de te rm in at io n a ndin th e d efen da nt s’ refu sa l t o c on du cta he ari ng to jus ti fy hi s as si gn m en t t o t he m en ta l-h eal th ward . In l ig htof h is in juri es , Gou ldreque st ed in jun ct iv e rel ie f an d $ 4 m il li onin da m ag es . The de fen da nt s fi le d am ot io n t o d is m is s, wh ic h t he pa rti es bri efed ex te ns iv el y . The d efen da nt s ar gu edth atGou ldha d fa il edto ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s an d fa il edto st at e a cl ai m for rel ie f. Gou ldres po nd edth at § 1 98 3 h adno ex haus ti on requi rem en t an d a rg ue d t ha t p ris on off ic ia ls ha d hi nd eredhi s ef

fo rts to pu rs ue an y

m ean in gf

ul adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. Befo re the m ag is tra te jud ge to who m th e cas e h adbe enrefe rredrul edon th e m ot io n t o d is m is s, Go ul d fi le d t wo “ Em erg en cy Lett ers ” wit h t he co urt. Inhi s le tt ers , Gou ldall eg edth atsev eral Ru tl ed ge Sta te Pri so n o ffi ci al s—no ne of wh om was th ena de fen da nt

—h adbe at enhi m , sex ua ll y ass au lt edhi m

with apo li ce b at on , an d g oa de d h im

in to cu tt in g h is arm

with arazo r. Afterlet ti ng hi m bl eed“ fo r a whi le ,” th e o ffi ci al s t oo k h im to ha ve hi s arm

tre at ed , bu t the y

refu se d t o a ll ow m ed ic al pe rs on ne l t o i ns pe ctth e wou nd s caus edby the sex ua l as saul t. Go ul d was th entra ns ferr edto Vald os taSta te Pri so n, wh ere h e rec ei ve d m or e co m pl et e m ed ic al att en ti on ten da y s l at er. Gou ldals o a ccu se d t he off ic ia ls of h ur li ng raci al ep it he ts whi le for ci ng hi m to st an d o ut si de in th e co ld . After f il in g the em erg en cy 5le tt ers , Gou ldm ov edforlea ve to am en d h is co m pl ai ntso th athe co ul d b rin g n ew cl ai m s fo r to rtu re an d re ta li at io n a ga in stth e o ffi ci al s i nv ol ve d i n t hi s i nc id en t. The m ag is tra te jud ge is su eda rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on gra nt in g the de fen da nt s’ m ot io n t o d is m is s an d d en y in g Go ul d’s “ fu ti le ” m ot io n t o am en d. 5 Afte r fi nd in g t ha t Go ul d h adfai le d t o e xh au sthi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, the m ag is tra te co nc lu de d t ha t h e h adals o fa il edto st at e a v al idcla im forrel ie f. The di st ric t co urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te ’s reco m m en da ti on ov er Go ul d’s o bjec ti on an d d is m is se d the co m

pl ai nt . Gou ldap pe al s.

II Gou ld ’s firs t ar gu m en t o n app eal is th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d aser ie s of pro cedur al erro rs be fo re d is m is si ng hi s co m pl ai nt . For i ns ta nc e, he arg ue s t ha t hi s ac ti on sh ou ldno t h av e b een tra ns ferr edto th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a be cau se th e cri m e h e wit ne ss edat t he tra ns it io na l fa ci li ty occu rredin th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a. Bu t Go ul d wai ve d t hi s ar gu m en t b y fai li ng to bri ng itto th e di st ric t co urt’s at te nt io n, an d we wi ll no t co ns id er i t fo r th e fi rs t t im e h ere. Se e Ta nn en ba um v. Un it ed

St at es , 14 8 F .3d12 62 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (“ [I]ss ue s n ot rai se d b el ow ar e n orm al ly deem edwaiv ed .”).

Gould had a se ries of othe r motions pending that the mag istrate re commended de nying 5 as moot. 6Gou ldals o a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt co ul d n othave ad equa te ly revi ewed

hi s o bjec ti on s t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on be cau se ne it he r th e m ag is tra te no r th e d is tri ctjud ge co nduc te d ahe ari ng . Butth is act io n was di sm is se d o n t he pl ead in gs , andGou ldwas n oten ti tl edto anev id en ti ary (o r an y ot he r) h eari ng be fo re the co urt ru le d o n t he de fen dant s’ m ot io n. We will no t pr es um e th e d is tri ctjud ge fai le d t o e ng ag e in th e p le nary rev ie w exp ect edof h im 6 si m pl y be cau se Gou lddi d n otrece iv e anop po rtu ni ty to p res en t fa ct ua l ev id en ce in op po si ti onto a m ot io n t es ti ng th e le ga l su ffi ci en cy

of h is cla im s. Fi na ll y , Gou ldarg ue s t ha t the co urt erredby den y in g h im lea ve to am en d hi s co m pl ai nt . “ W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o g ran t l eav e to am en d fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, al th ou gh we ex erci se de no vo rev ie w as t o t he un de rlyin g le ga l co nc lu si on th atanam en dm en t t o t he co m pl ai ntwou ldbe fut il e.” SFM Holdi ng s, Ltd. v. Ba nc of

Am. Secs ., LLC , 60 0 F .3d13 34 , 13 36 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Gou ldarg ue s tha t the ne w all eg at io ns in hi s “ Em erg en cy Lett ers ” were a na tu ral ex te ns io n o f hi s o rig in al cla im s b ecau se th e ab us e h e d es cri be d re pr es en te d pr is on off ic ia ls ’ at te m

pt s t o c arry outth ei r ear li er thr eat s ag ai ns t h im forpu rs ui ng th is laws ui t. Alt ho ug h Go ul d c ou ldno lo ng er am en d h is co m pl ai ntas o f ri gh t, the di st ric t co urt h adanob li ga ti on to gi ve hi m lea ve to am en d i f jus ti ce s o re qu ire d. See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 6 7Fed . R. Civ . P. 15 (a)( 2) . In o th er ci rcu m st an ces , just ic e m ig htwell ha ve requi red

th e co urt t o g iv e h im

su ch lea ve . Se e Foma n v . Davis , 37 1 U.S. 1 78 , 18 2 (1 96 2) (“ If the un de rlyin g fa ct s o r ci rcu m st an ces rel ie d upo n b y a pl ai nt iff

m ay be a pr op er s ub

ject o f rel ie f, he ou gh t t o b e affo rd edanop po rtu ni ty to t es t h is cla im on th e m eri ts .”). Bu t a d is tri ctco urt m ay de ny leav e to am en d o n t he gro un d o f fu ti li ty if th e co m

pl ai ntas a m en de d wo ul d s ti ll be subjec t t o d is m is sa l. Hal l v. Uni te d In s. Co . of

Am. , 36 7 F .3d12 55 , 12 62 –6 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . Here, Go ul d’s n ew al le ga ti on s o f ab us e rel at edto “pr is on co nd it io ns ,” an d th e Pri so n Li ti ga ti on Refo rm Act (P LRA) requi redhi m to ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b efo re fi li ng su it . 42 U.S.C. § 1 99 7e (a); Por te r v. N us sl e , 53 4 U.S. 5 16 , 53 2 (2 00 2) (“ [T]he PLRA’s ex haus ti on requi rem en t ap pl ie s t o a ll in m at e su it s ab ou t p ris on li fe, wh ethe r th ey in vo lv e g en eral cir cu m st an ces or pa rti cu la r ep is od es , andwhethe r th ey all eg e ex ces si ve for ce o r so m e o th er wro ng .”). Becaus e Gou ldne ve r m ad e an y att em ptto pu rs ue th e rem ed ie s fo r th is in ci de ntav ai labl e to hi m

inth e p ris on syste m , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t am en di ng hi s co m pl ai ntto in cl ud e th es e n ew al le ga ti on s wo ul d ha ve be enfut il e. On the se fact s, d en y in g Go ul d’s m ot io n fo r le av e to am en d was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

8III

Gou ldde vo te s m os t o f hi s en erg y onap pe al to ch al le ng in g t he di sm is sa l o f hi s co m pl ai nt . Con st ru edli be ral ly, Gou ld ’s com pl ai ntpu rp orte d t o s ta te co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s u nd er the Fir stAm en dm en t, the Eig ht h Am en dm en t, an d t he Fo urte en th Am en dm en t’s Du e Pro ces s an d Equa l Pr ot ect io n C laus es . W e rev ie w th e d is m is sa l o f th es e cl ai m s de no vo . Pow el l v. Le nn on , 91 4 F .2d14 59 , 14 63 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . The que st io n i s wh ethe r th e co m pl ai nt“ co nt ai n[ ed ] su ffi ci en t factua l m at te r, acce pt edas t ru e, to ‘ st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at[was ] pl au si bl e o n i ts face .’ ” Ash cr of

t v. Iq ba l , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 93 7, 1 94 9 (2 00 9) (qu ot in g Bell Atl . Cor p. v. Two mbl y , 55 0 U.S. 5 44 , 57 0 (2 00 7) ). It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t Go ul d d idno t ex haus t the adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s av ai labl e th ro ug h t he pri so n s y st em ’s gri ev an ce p ro cedur es . Ordi na ril y , th is 7 fai lu re wo ul d re qu ire th e d is m is sa l o f hi s cl ai m s; un de r th e PLRA, p ris on ers can no t ch al le ng e “pr is on co nd it io ns ” in co urt “ un ti l s uc h a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as are av ai labl e are ex haus te d.” 42 U.S.C. § 1 99 7e (a). Bu t Go ul d a rg ue s t ha t h e di d n otha ve to res ort t o t he pri so n s y st em ’s gri ev an ce p ro cedur es an d t ha t, i n a ny ev en t, n o m ean in gf

ul adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s wer e av ai labl e. Although G ould filed sever al informal grieva nces, he never

followed up with the for

mal 7 grieva nce f orms require d by

prison rules. 9W it h re sp ectto th e fi rs t ar gu m en t, Go ul d i s m is ta ke n. Al th ou gh “ [p ]riso ne r

su it s al le gi ng co ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io ns whi le in carc erat edon ce fe ll withi n [t he ] ge ne ral rul e” tha t “pl ai nt iff s p ur su in g c iv il rig ht s cl ai m s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 ne edno t ex haus t adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s,” Por te r , 53 4 U.S. at52 3, Co ng res s ch an ge d t ha t ru le in 19 80 an d fu rth er “ in vi go rat edth e ex haus ti onpre sc rip ti on ” with t he PLRA in 19 95 , id. 52 3– 24 . Tod ay itis cle ar tha t Ei gh th Am en dm en t cl ai m s re ga rd in g abu si ve tre atm en t fa ll squa rel y withi n the am

bi t o f th e PLRA’s ex haus ti on requi rem en t. Id. at53 2. Lik ewis e, th e m anne r in whi ch pri so n of fic ia ls withh el d Go ul d’s p ro pe rty, dev el op edth e rec or d fo r hi s p aro le he ari ng , an d h in de redhi s ef

fo rts to pa rti ci pa te in th is li ti ga ti on—the cru x o f hi s cl ai m s un de r th e Due Pro ces s C laus e—u nd en iabl y rel at es to pri so n c on di ti on s. An d t o th e ex te ntGou ld ’s cla im s fo r ret al ia ti on m ig htbe co gn iz ab le un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t, h e st il l h adth e o bl ig at io n t o p ur su e ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b efo re fil in g t hi s ac ti on . Se e Ale xa nder v. Hawk , 15 9 F .3d13 21 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (ap pl y in g t he ex haus ti on requi rem en t t o aFir stAm en dm en t cl ai m). The s am e m us t b e sa idof h is di sc riminat io n c la im s u nd er the Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e. Se e Jo ne s v. Bo ck , 54 9 U.S. 1 99 , 21 0– 11 (20 07 ) (ap pl y in g t he ex haus ti on requi rem en t to a race -d is cri m in at io n c la im ).

10Gou ld ’s on ly argu m en t ag ai ns t h is ob li ga ti on to ex haus t ad m in is tra ti ve

rem ed ie s i s the co nt en ti on th athe co ul d n otha ve fil edgri ev an ces to ch al le ng e ev en ts rel at edto th e cri m e h e wit ne ss edor t he de ci si on to de ny his pa ro le . But Gou lddi d n otsu e b ecau se he ha d wi tn es se d acri m e o r was de ni edpa ro le . On th e co nt rary, he h as all eg edth atth e d efen da nt s re ta li at edag ai ns t h im forrep orti ng a cri m e an d t ha t the y

fai le d t o p rep are c ert ai n d oc um en ts forth e Par ol e Bo ard ’s co ns id erat io n. Th es e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s re la te to co nd it io ns withi n t he co nt ro l of pri so n o ffi ci al s, an d Go ul d h adto pu rs ue “ su ch adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s as [were ] av ai labl e.” 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 97 e(a) . Inap pa ren t re co gn it io n o f th e fac t tha t h e h adso m e dut y to ex haus t adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, Go ul d a ls o a rg ue s t ha t n o a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s wer e m ad e m ean in gf

ul ly “ av ai labl e” t o h im

th ro ug h the pri so n g rie va nc e syst em . W e di sa gr ee. The Geor gi a Dep art m en t o f Co rrec ti on s al lo ws i nm at es to fil e gr ie va nc es ch al le ng in g n earl y “ [a]ny co nd it io n, p ol ic y , pro cedur e, act io n o r la ck th ereo f th ataffe ct s i nm at es an d i s i n the [Dep art m en t’s] con tro l.” (De f.’s PreAns wer Mo t. t o Di sm is s Ex . A Ex. 1, at3.) An d n ot withs tand in g t he li m it ed ex cep ti on s t o t he ge ne ral gri ev an ce p ol ic y , in m at es m ay gri ev e an y act s o f

“ ret al ia ti on , m is co nduc t o r haras sm en t . . . reg ard le ss of t he form .” ( Id. )

11To the ex te ntGou ldarg ue s t ha t the pri so n s y st em ’s gri ev an ce p ro cedur es

were i na de qu at e o r th atth ei r pu rs ui t wo ul d h av e p ro ve n fu ti le , th e Supr em e Co urt an d t hi s co urt h av e al read y reject edhi s ar gu m en t. Se e Por te r , 53 4 U.S. at52 4 (“ All ‘ av ai labl e’ rem ed ie s m us t n ow b e ex haus te d; th os e rem ed ie s n eedno t m eet fed eral st an da rd s, n orm

us t the y be ‘ pl ai n, s pe edy , andeffe ct iv e.’” (cit at io n om it te d) ); Boo th v. Ch ur ne r , 53 2 U.S. 7 31 , 74 1 (2 00 1) (“ Co ng res s h as m an da te d ex haus ti on cle arl y

en ou gh , reg ard le ss of t he rel ie f of fere d thr ou gh adm in is tra ti ve pr oc edur es .”); Alex an de r , 15 9 F .3dat 1 32 6 (“ Si nc e ex haus ti on is no w a pr eco nd it io n t o s ui t, the co urts can no t s im pl y waiv e th os e requi rem en ts wher e th ey de te rm in e th ey

are fu ti le or i na de qu at e.”). An d Go ul d wai ve d any argu m en t tha t th e p ris on syste m ’s gri ev an ce p ro cedur es were u nc on st itut io na l b y rai si ng th e is su e fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal . Befo re the di st ric t co urt, Go ul d a ls o a rg ue d t ha t p ris on off ic ia ls ha d pr ev en te d h im

fro m ex haus ti ng hi s ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b y de nyin g h im

form al gr ie va nc e fo rm s. As su m in g t ha t Go ul d h as no t ab an do ne d t hi s co nt en ti onon ap pe al , we no te th e o bv io us : a p ris on er d en ie d a cces s t o a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s

8 ha s n o ava il ab le rem ed ie s t o e xh au st . Butwe are n otin cl in edto di sturb t he Although G ould has not expl icitly ref err ed to this alleg ation on appea l, we construe his 8 briefs liber ally

in light of his insistence that the prison sy stem’s administrative re medies we re inadequate. 12di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs on ex haus ti onhe re. Cf . Tur ne r v. Bu rn si de , 54 1 F.3 d 1 07 7, 1 08 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (“ If the co m pl ai ntis no t s ub

ject t o d is m is sa l . . . whe re the pl ai nt iff’s all eg at io ns are as su m edto be tru e, th e co urt the n p ro ceed s t o m ak e sp eci fic fin di ng s i n o rd er t o re so lv e th e d is pu te d fa ctua l i ss ue s re la te d t o ex haus ti on .”). The r eco rdsh ows Gou ld ’s us e o f th e g rie va nc e p ro cedur es in ot he r co nt ex ts , andwe can no t s ay th atth e co urt’s fi nd in gs onth is po in t wer e cl earl y erro ne ou s. Cf

. Brya nt v. Rich , 53 0 F .3d13 68 , 13 78 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ [W] e can no t s ay

th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d c le ar erro r in fin di ng th atPri es te r ha d acce ss to gri ev an ce fo rm s atGSP b y whi ch he co ul d h av e rep orte d t he pri so n ab us e atRo ge rs .”). IV Reg ard le ss of t he ser io us ne ss of h is all eg at io ns , Gou ldha d a n o bl ig at io n t o ex haus t the rem ed ie s t ha t wer e av ai labl e in th e p ris on syste m be fo re s eek in g redres s i n c ou rt. Be cau se he fai le d t o fu lfi ll th atob li ga ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt d id no t err by dis m is si ng hi s co m pl ai nt . Nor d iditerr b y

de nyin g h is m ot io n t o in tro du ce n ew un ex haus te d c la im s t o t hi s l it ig at io n. In li gh t o f th es e co nc lu si on s, Gou ld ’s ob

jecti on s t o t he di st ric t co urt’s d is po sa l o f th e o th er m ot io ns be fo re i t ar e m oo t. The jud gm en t b el ow i s AFFIRMED. 13