* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 11 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

FAMAMARZ MEHDIPOUR,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 03-6054

v. (W.D. Oklahoma) DARREN SWENSON, RENEE WATKINS, Assistant Warden; TOM KESSLER, Assistant Warden; KELLY WILKELY, Chief of Security; CAPTAIN STEER, Shift Supervisor; CURTIS BOOHER, Investigator; HEATHER BERNARD, Mailroom Clerk; JAN REEDER, Classification Clerk; OFFICER CASH, DON POPE, individually and in their official capacities; CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware corporation,

Defendants-Appellees. (D.C. No. 01-CV-1752-B)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , HENRY , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to decide this case on the briefs witho ut oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case i s therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Faramarz Mehdipour, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various prisonofficials alleging that they violated his First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to di smiss, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies as r equired by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We c onclude that the district court was correct and affirm its dismissal of Mr. Mehdipo ur’s claims. Mr. Mehdipour’s complaint alleged that, based upon his Middle Eastern descent and in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attac ks: (1) he was placed in segregation, denied his mail, denied any exercise t ime, had his legal and religious materials (Koran, prayer rug) confiscated, and rece ived reductions in his earned good time credits; (2) his confidential personal an d legal correspondence, including money orders correspondence with the courts and his attorneys, was confiscated; (3) he was deprived and denied access to the few legal resources the prison provided, and his research materials relatedto that research were confiscated; (4) in retaliation for his threats of legal action, Mr. Mehdipour was-3-

placed in segregation; (5) the prison’s policies intraining its employees to take part in the above actions violated his constitution al rights; (6) the defendants conspired to violate Mr. Mehdipour’s constitutional rights; (7) the defendants have violated Mr. Mehdipour’s Sixth Amendment rightof access to the courts; (8) acting with deliberate indifference, the defendants placed Mr. Mehdipour in substantial danger in his housing assignment; (9) the defendants established a policy of denying inmates access to the courts thro ugh the provision of a contract attorney; and (10) the defendants established a pol icy of discriminating against persons of Middle Eastern descent by denying them c ertain privileges and educational assignments. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaus t administrative remedies. Miller v. Menghini , 213 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000), overruled on other grounds by Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001). Since Mr. Mehdipour is pro se, we liberally construe his fili ngs, see Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 199 5, prisoners bringing suit under § 1983 must first exhaust available admi nistrative remedies before seeking relief in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 198 3 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, pr ison, or other correctional-4-

facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”). Full exhaustion of available remedies is required regard less of the nature of the relief sought. Booth , 532 U.S. at 741. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. As the district court explained, the Cimarron Corre ctional Facility has a three-tier approach to resolving inmate complaints. To exhaust available remedies at the facility, an inmate must (1) attemp t to resolve matters informally, (2) file a grievance with the facility, and (3) app eal any unresolved matter to the facility head. Rec. doc. 50, at 3 (Mem. Order, fil ed Dec. 26, 2002). The record indicates that while incarcerated, Mr. Mehdipour fi led but two grievances at the facility, despite the number of claims he raises he re. The first grievance addressed the facility’s failure to deposit the mon ey order into his account. This grievance was returned because Mr. Mehdipour did no t seek an informal resolution of the dispute before filing the grievan ce. Second, Mr. Mehdipour filed a grievance regarding the confiscation of leg al mail. This grievance was not appealed. We have carefully reviewed Mr. Mehdipour’s appellat e brief, the district court’s order, and the record on appeal, and agree that Mr. Mehdipour has failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Nowhere in the record is there evidence that Mr. Mehdipour properly used the avail able prison grievance process1 We also deny Mr. Mehdipour’s “Motion for StrickenUnauthorized

Order.” -5- to make his constitutional claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss for fail ure to exhaust without prejudice. 1 For the reasons stated below, we affirm. Entered for the Court, Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge