FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT O c t obe r 4, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10983 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 04 -002 18 -C V -4
C L A R E N C E “C L A Y ” R E D M O N D L O G U E , J R ., P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s C H A T H A M C O U N T Y D E T E N T I O N C E N T E R , A . D O R S E Y , F N U M I T C H E L L , L t., G I L B E R G , C o rp o r a l, M C A R T H U R H O L M E S , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( O c t obe r4, 2005)
B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:L ogue appe als the dismissal of his complaint only as to the four

black CCDC officials. 1 Th edis mis sal a s toCCD C, C CD S, a nd Ho lme s isno t at is su ein t hisa pp e al. 2 C l ar e nc e “ Cl a y ” Re dmon d Logu e , J r . , a G e or gi a pr i s on e r pr oc e e di ng pr o se,
a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rd is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c iv il c o m p la in t, i n p art , for f

ai l ure t o exh austadm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es , 42 U
. S .C
. § 1 99 7e(c )( 1),
a n d , in p a r t, f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac l a im , 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 1 ) . L o g u e , w h o is
w hi t e, sued the C hatham C ou nty D et en ti o n C ent er(“ C C D C ”) , the C hatham C o u n ty S h e r if

f’s D e p a r tm e n t ( “C C S D ” ) , f o u rb la c k C C D C o f

f ic ia ls , a n d J a il A dm i ni s tr a t or H ol m e s , a l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of hi s r i ght s t o e qua l pr ot e c t i o n a nd
a c c e s s to th e c o u r ts b a s e d o n th e d e n ia l o f L o g u e ’s r e q u e s ts f

o rm u ltip le ph ot ocop i es o f supp ort i ng exhi bi t s, i ncl ud i ng l engthy tra nscr i pt s, for hi s use i n an
unr e l a t e d habe a s c orpus pr oc e e di ng. L ogue a s s e r t e d tha tthe de f e nda n t s’ d e ni a l of 1 hi s r e que s t s w a s ba s e d on r a c e . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi sm i ssed the e qua l
- pr ot e c t i on cl ai m base d o n L og ue’ s f ai l ure t o exh austadm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es and d ism i ss ed the a c c e s s - t o- the
- c our t s c l a i m f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m . A f t e rthor ough r e vi e w of th e r e c o r d a n d Lo g u e ’ s b r i e f , w e a f f i rm. W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l f orf a i l ur e t o e xha us ta dm i ni s tr a t i ve
r e m e d ie s d e n o v o . A le x a n d e rv . H a w k , 1 5 9 F .3 d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . W e
r e vi e w a d i s tr i c tc our t ’ s § 1915A di s m i s s a l f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m de novo. L ea l v. G a. D ep’ tof C orrs . , 25 4 F
. 3d 12 76 , 12 78 -79 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ).For the first time on appe al, L ogue also a rgues that these prison officials violated his due 2 proce ss rights beca

use he wa s denied the right to file a grieva nce ba sed on racial discrimination. As to L ogue’s dueproce ss argument, we g enerally do not consider iss u es not raise d before the district court. See N arey

v. Dea n, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526- 27 (11th Cir. 1994). In Narey, we noted f ive e xcepti on s tothi s rule , but no ne a pp ly in t hisc a se . There fo re , w ewi ll n ot add re ss t hedu eproc e ss issue. 3 F i rs t , L og ue cont ends thathi s e qu al prot ec t i on cl ai m shou l d n othave been d i sm i ssed fo r fai l u re t o ex h au stad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es b e cau se th e d efen d an t s’
a c tio n s m a d e th e a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d y u n a v a ilab le t o h i m . I n h is c o m p la in t, 2 L ogue s t at ed tha tthe r e w a s agr i e va nc e pr oc e dur e i n pl a c e a tC C D C a nd tha the had ex h au st ed hi s r em edi es un der i t . L og ue att ac hed t o h i s c om pl ai nta c op y of a n I n m a t e Gr i e v a n c e F o rm , d a t e d Ma r c h 8 , 2 0 0 4 , i n wh i c h h e s t a t e d th a tC C DC
o f f ic ia ls h a d n o t c o m p lie d w ith th e iro w n c o p y in g p o lic y a n d h a d d e n i e d h is
r e que s tf orc opi e s of

doc um e nt s f

orf i l i ng i n s uppor tof

ahabe a s c orpus pe t i t i on he
w as prepari ng . N ot abl y, L og ue di d n otal l ege that th e d en ials of hi s r equest s w er e in a n y w a y r e la te d to h is r a c e . Indeed, base d o n o ur re vi ew , the fi rs tt i m e L og ue ever me nt i on ed ra ce di s c r i m i n at i o n w a s w he n he f i l e d hi s c om pl a i nti n the di s tr i c tc our t , s t a t i ng tha the had request ed copi es and thathi s r equest s w er e “ cont i nu al l y deni ed.
. . . bec ause I
am w h i t e. ” In th e co m p l ai n t ’ s st at em en tco n cern i n g ex h au st i o n o f rem e d i es, L o g u e d i d n o tm e n tio n th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts h a d p r e v e n te d h im f r o m e x h a u s tin g h is adm i ni stra t i ve re m ed i es , as he no w ar gu es on appeal
. R ather, he st at ed thathe had4

e xha us t e d the g ri e va nc e pr oc e dur e by f i l i ng the I nm a t e G r i e va nc e F orm he att ac hed t o h i s c om pl ai nt . A gai n, the F orm m akes no m ent io n o f race
. L i kew i se , L og ue’ s c om pl ai ntdi d n otst ate th at he had any prob l em exhaust i ng hi s r em edi es du ri ng the gri evance proce du re du e t o the defendant s’ cond uc t, o r fo r any other
r e a s o n . U nde rthe P r i s on L i t i ga t i on R e f orm A c t( “ P L R A ” ) , 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1 915 a nd 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e , p r is o n e r s a r e r e q u ir e d to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s p r io rto f i l i n g ac i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n . Sp e c i f i c a l l y , 4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) o f th e PLRA
m a n d a te s th e f

o llo w in g : N o ac t i on s ha l l be br ou gh tw i th r e s pe c tt o p r i s on c on di t i on s un der sectio n 1 9 83 of thi s t i t l e, or any other f eder al l aw , by a pri soner confi ned i n any j ai l , pri son, o r o th ercorr ec t i on al fa ci l i ty unt i l such a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s a s a r e a v a ilab le a r e e x h a u s te d
. T he S upr e m e C our tha s de t e rm i ne d tha tP L R A ’ s m a nda t ory e xha us t i on
re qu i re m ent ap p li es t o al l fe dera l cl ai m s broug htby any i nm at e. P ort erv. N ussl e, 5 3 4 U .S . 5 1 6 , 5 2 0 , 1 2 2 S . C t. 9 8 3 , 9 8 6 , 1 5 2 L . E d
. 2 d 1 2 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . M o r e o v e r , th is C our tha s he l d t ha tthe e xha us t i on r e qui r e m e nti s m a nda t ory , a nd c a nnotbe
w ai ve d, e ve n w he n the pr oc e s s i s f ut i l e or i na de qu a t e . A l e xa nd e r , 15 9 F. 3d at 1 3 2 5 -2 6
. S i m p l y p u t , o n th i s reco rd , w e are sat i sfi ed th at L o g u e d id n o t ex h au st h is e q u a l- p r o te c tio n c la im w h e r e h e d id n o t r e f e rto r a c e p r io rto f

ili n g h is
c o m p la in t a n d d id n o t a s s e r t a n y p r o b l e m w ith th e g r ie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e p r io rtoWe note that we may aff irm the district court’s de cision on any basis supported by

the 3 rec ord. See B rown v. Johnson, 397 F.3d 1344, 1351 (11th Cir. 2004). To the extent the district court c onstrued this claim as conc erningsolely a viol at i o nof L ogue’s right to photocopies, w e c on str uehisc laim e ven more broadly, g iven his prosestatus , a nd alsoho ld t

hat hea sserte d a

c laim, albe it uns uc c e ssf

ully, b a se d o n his rightsto ac c e ss t hec ourt s. 5 l odgi ng obj e c t i ons t o the R e por ta nd R e c om m e nda t i on. A s f or L og ue’ s a cc es s- t o-the-c ou rt s c l ai m , i ti s w el l -s et t l ed that“ [p] ri soners 3 ha ve a co n st i tut i ona l r i ghtt o a de qua t e , e f f e c t i ve , a nd m e a ni ngf

ul a c c e s s t o the
c our t s . ” W a nni nge rv. D a ve npor t , 697 F
. 2d 992, 993 ( 11th C i r. 1 9 8 3 ) ( quot a t i on
o mi t t e d) ; s e e a l s o Bo u n d s v . Sm i th , 4 3 0 U. S. 8 1 7 , 8 2 8 , 9 7 S. Ct
. 1 4 9 1 , 1 4 9 8 , 5 2 L. E d . 2 d 7 2 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( “[ T ]h e f u n d a m e n ta l c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t o f a c c e s s to th e c o u r ts
r e qui r e s pr i s on a uthor i t i e s t o . . . pr ovi d[ e ] p r i s one r s w i th a de qua t e l a w l i br a r i e s or adequat e a ss i st ance fr om pe rs on s tra i ned i n the l aw . ”)
. H ow ever , thi s r i gh tdo es
no tencom pass a r equi re m entthatpri son o ff i ci al s provi de a pri soner w i th fre e,
u n lim ite d a c c e s s to p h o to c o p ie s . W a n n in g e r , 6 9 7 F .2 d a t 9 9 4
. T o ha ve s t a ndi n g t o se e k r e l i e f unde r§ 1983 ba s e d on the de ni a l of c opy i ng p r iv ile g e s , ap la in tif

f m u s t s h o w a c tu a l in

ju ry b y s h o w in g th a t th e d e n ia l a c tu a lly im p e d e d an o n - f

r iv o lo u s c la im . W ils o n v . B la n k e n s h ip , 1 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 8 4 , 1 2 9 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ; s e e a ls o W a n n in g e r , 6 9 7 F
. 2 d a t 1 2 9 0 ( to b r in g a n a c c e s s - to - c o u r ts
c l a i m , pl a i nt i f

f m us ta l l e ge “ a c tua l i nj ury i n the pur s ui tof s pe c i f i c ty pe s of
n o n f r iv o lo u s c a s e s : d ir e c t o rc o lla te r a l a tta c k s o n s e n te n c e s a n d c h a lle n g e s to6

co nd i t i on s of

c on f i ne me nt ” )
. H e r e , Logu e di d n ota s s e r ttha tthe Ca l i f orni ac ourt
r e j e c t e d h i s h ab e a s p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e o f t h e mi s s i n g a tt a c h m e n t s a n d , th u s , we d i scer n n o actu al i n

j u ry g i v i n g ri se t o a v i o l at i o n o f h i s access t o th e co u rt s. Th e r e f o r e , w e a f

f i rm th e d i s mi s s a l o f

th i s c l a i m. AF F I RME D.