A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col 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 th 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 

### F e b r u ary15,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT W ALLA CE M I TCH ELL,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. K E V I N E ST R A D A , C orr ect i on O ffi cer ; J O E E . G U N J A , W ar den; BRA ND ON E. PAY NE, EM T- Pa r a me d i c ; BI LL GR AN T, M . D. , Ps y c h i a tr i s t ; HA RLEY L A P P IN , D i rect or, B ureau o f P ri sons, i n thei rper s onal and pr ofes s i onal capac i t i es, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees, and R A C H E L M IL L E R , R .N .,

D e fe n d a n t. N o. 05- 1476 ( D . C. N o. 03 - c v- 38 7- EW N - O ES)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , AN DE RS ON , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.-2-

W al l ace M i t chel l , a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the di s m i s s al of hi s cl ai m s thatdefe ndant s ( offi ci al s and empl oy ees of the U ni t ed S tate s B u re a u o f

P riso n s (B O P )), v io late d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts u n d e r th e F irst, Fi fth, Si xth, and Ei ghth A m endment s w hi l e he w as a pr i s oneratthe U ni t ed St at es P en it en ti aryin F loren ce , C o lorad o (U S P -F loren ce ). T h e re ce n t Su p rem e C o u rt cas e of Jones v. B ock , N os . 05- 7058, 05- 7142, 2007 W L 135890 ( U . S. J an. 22, 2007) , abr ogat es T enth C i r cui tcas es cons trui ng the exha us t i on r equi r ement s of 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) , a pr ovi s i on of the Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ctof 1995 (P L R A ). See R o ss v . C o u n ty o f B e rn a lil lo , 3 6 5 F . 3 d 1 1 8 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), abr ogat ed by Jones , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 3 5 8 9 0 , at * 1 3 -* 1 5 ; St eele v. Feder alB ur eau of P r is ons , 3 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 0 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), abr ogat ed by Jones , 2007 W L 135890, a t * 1 1 . B eca us e the di s tr i ctcourtr el i ed on the abr ogat ed ca s es fori t s exhaus t i on ru lin g s, w e re v e rse a n d re m a n d fo r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s o n iss u e s re late d to exhaus t i on. W e al s o di s m i s s as m ootM r . M i t chel l ’ s appel l at e cha l l enges t o the de ni a l of

de c l a r a t orya nd i nj un c t i ve r e l i e f b a s e d o n h i s tr a ns fe rfr om U SPF loren ce . F inally , w e a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s disp o sit ion o f M r. M it ch ell ’s rem ai ning i ssues.M r . M i t chel l al s o s ued defendantR ache l M i l l er , a U SP nurs e, fordeni al of 1 m edi cal tr eatm ent . B ecaus e M s . M i l l erhas neverbeen s erved and ha s never a p p e a re d in th is a c tio n , th e c la im a g a in s t h e r i s n o t r e le v a n t to th is a p p e a l. -3- I. In a se rie s o f

c o m p lain ts, a m e n d m e n ts, a n d su p p lem e n ts, M r. M itch e ll a lle g e d th a t: ( 1 ) d e fe n d a n t K e v in E s tr a d a , a c o rr e c tio n a l o ffic e r a t U S P -F lo re n c e , had hi r ed i nm at es t o as s aul tM r . M i t chel l i n A pr i l 2003 and had pl ace d a cont i nui ng contr acton hi s l i fe; ( 2) defe ndantJ oe E. G unj a, the U SP w ar den, thr eat ened t o have M r . M i t chel l ki l l ed, pl ace d know n enemi es i n hi s cel l , or der ed the A pr i l 2003 as s aul t , and cons pi r ed w i th O ffi cerE s tr ada; ( 3) defe ndantB r andon Payne, a par amedi c, r efus ed t o tr eatM r . M i t chel l forthe s er i ous i nj ur i es he s us t a i ne d i n the a s s a ul t ; ( 4) de fe nd a ntH a r l e yLap pi n, the D i r e c t orof the BO P, c o n sp ire d w ith d e fe n d a n t G u nja to h a v e M r. M itch e ll k ill e d , o rd e re d h im a ss a u lted , an d re f

u se d to tra n sfe r h im to a sa fe r fa c ili ty ; an d (5 ) d e fe n d a n t B ill G ra n t, th e U S P -F lo re n c e p sy c h iatris t, de n ied h im h is n e c e ss a ryp sy c h o tro p ic m edi cat i ons . M r . M i t chel l s oughtdamages , a dec l ar at oryj udgm entof off i ci al 1 w ron g d o ing , an d an injun cti o n req u ir ing a p rotec ti v e tran sfe r. D e fe n d a n ts filed m o tio n s to d ism iss , w h ich w e re re fe rre d to th e m a g istra te j ud ge assi gn ed to the case. M r. M i t chell con t est ed d efen dan t s’ m oti on s and als o as ked the magi s tr at e j udge t o r ecus e hi m s el f and t o di s qual i fythe as s i s t antU ni t ed St at es att orneyas couns el fordefe ndant s . T he magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended d e n ial o f

th e m o tio n s to d isq u a lifya n d re c u se a s la c k in g in m e rit.S ect i on 19 97 e(a) provides: 2 N o act i on s hal l be br oughtw i th r es pectt o pr i s on condi t i ons under s ect i on 1983 of thi s t i t l e, oranyotherFeder al l aw , bya pr i s oner confi ned i n anyj ai l , pr i s on, orothercorr ect i onal fac i l i tyunt i l s uch admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as ar e ava i l abl e ar e exha us t ed. -4- T hen, i n a det ai l ed s eventy - s i x page r ecomm endat i on, the magi s tr at e j udge s or t ed thr ough M r . M i t chel l ’ s cl ai m s . B as ed on the doctr i ne of s over ei gn im m u n ity, th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e re c o m m e n d e d th a t th e c la im s fo r d a m a g e s , decl ar at oryr el i ef, and i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tdefe ndant s i n thei roffi ci al c a p a c itie s s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d w ith p reju d ic e . T he m agis trat e j ud ge n ext eval uated M r. M i t chell ’s dam age clai m s agai nst defe ndant s i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es forexhaus t i on of ava i l abl e admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i n acc or dance w i th 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . T he magi s tr at e j udge appl i ed 2 the abr ogat ed rul e expr es s ed i n S tee le , 3 5 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 9 -1 0 , tha t i n thi s ci r cui t , the exha us t i on r equi r ementi s notan affi r m at i ve defe ns e, buti ns t ead, m us tbe s uffi ci ent l ypl ed and/ ordocument ed by an i nm at e i n hi s C om pl ai ntand fa i l ur e t o do s o i s the s ame as fai l i ng t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed. T her efor e, the bur den w i th r egar d t o the exha us t i on r equi r ement s bel ongs t o the i nm at e w ho m us ts uppl yw el l - pl ed fa ctual al l egat i ons and/ or d o c u m e n tatio n in h is p lea d in g s. T o sa tisf yth is b u rd e n , the in m a te w h o d e sire s to p u rsu e a p riso n c o n d iti o n s c laim in fe d e ra l co u rt w ill nece s s ar i l yneed t o m ai nt ai n acc ur at e r ecor ds of hi s orhergr i evanc e act i vi t i es . . . . [T]he ul t i m at e i s s ue i s and r emai ns w hetherthe pl ai nt i ff ha s w el l - pl ed fa ctual al l egat i ons and/ orpr ovi ded s uffi ci ent d o c u m e n ta tio n o f

e x h a u s tio n w ith re g a rd to h is in d iv id u a l c la im s . . . . R ., D o c . 1 4 9 , a t 2 5 -2 6 (c ita tio n o m itte d ).-5-

W i th thi s expl i ci tal l ocat i on of the bur den, the magi s tr at e j udge conc l uded thatM r . M i t chel l had demonstr at ed exha us t i on of hi s cl ai m s agai ns tM r . G unj a, w i th the exc ept i on of new l y - added a l l egat i ons of a c ons pi r acyw i th M r . E s tr ada a n d M r . La p p i n . He th e n d e t e r mi n e d th a tn o n e o f M r . M i t c h e l l ’ s o th e rc l a i ms w ere ex h au sted . T h e m ag istrate jud g e w as u n p ersu ad ed b yM r. M it ch ell ’s ar gum entthatanyl ack of actual exhaus t i on s houl d be exc us ed on the gr ound that th e p ri s o n g ri e v a n c e p ro c e s s w a s n o t a v a ila b le to h im d u ri n g c ri tic a l tim e p e ri o d s . T he magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended a l l ow i ng vol unt arydi s m i s s al of the u n e x h a u ste d c laim s w ith p reju d ice a n d p ro c e e d in g w ith th e e x h a u ste d c laim agai ns tM r . G unj a. M r. M it ch ell o bjected to the rec o m m en d ati o n an d , as th e d istri ct co u rt sta ted , “[ c ]o n sis ten t w ith h is a p p ro a c h to th e p riso n g rie v a n c e p ro c e ss a n d h is appr oach i n t ender i ng s uppl ement al pl eadi ngs t o the court , he . . . fi l ed numer ous su p p lem e n tal o bjec tio n s w ith o u t ev e r sh o w in g w h yh e c o u ld n o t h a v e p lac e d a ll hi s obj ect i ons i nt o a s i ngl e document . ” R . , D oc. 170, at1. U pon i t s de novo re v iew , the d istric t co u rt a g re e d w ith th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s d iss e c tio n o f th e fa c ts and r ecomm endat i on t o di s m i s s w i th pr ej udi ce the off i ci al - capa ci tycl ai m s . T he c o u rt , h o w e v e r, r e f

u s e d to a llo w v o lu n ta ry d is m is s a l o f th e u n e x h a u s te d c la im s . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeci ded thatthe “be t t ercour s e i s t o . . . di s m i s s al l of the in d iv id u a l-c a p a c ityc laim s w ith o u t p reju d ice ” u n d e r th e re c e n tlya b ro g a ted ru le announce d i n R o s s , 365 F. 3d at1189, thatthe PL R A r equi r es di s m i s s al of an-6-

act i on i n i t s ent i r etyw i thoutpr ej udi ce i f a pr i s oner ’ s compl ai ntcont ai ns unexhaus t ed cl ai m s . R . , D oc. 170 at2. II. O n appea l , M r . M i t chel l as s ert s thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed: ( 1) i n deny i ng hi s m ot i ons fordi s qual i fi cat i on of the as s i s t antU ni t ed St at es att orneyand r ecus al of the magi s tr at e j udge; ( 2) i n di s m i s s i ng w i thoutpr ej udi ce hi s damages cl ai m s for fa ilu re to d e m o n stra te to tal e x h a u stio n ; an d (3 ) in d ism iss in g w ith p reju d ice h is c laim s fo r d e c lar a to rya n d inju n c tiv e re lief. T h is c o u rt h a s ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 .

“ D ism iss a l o f

a p ro se c o m p lain t fo r fa ilu re to sta te a c laim is p ro p e r o n ly w her e i ti s obvi ous thatthe pl ai nt i ff c annotpr evai l on the fa ct s he has al l eged a nd i tw oul d be fut i l e t o gi ve hi m an opportuni tyt o amend. ” P erki ns v. Kan. D ept . of C orr ., 1 6 5 F .3 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). “I n d e ter m in in g w h e th e r d ism iss a l is pr oper , w e mustacc eptthe al l egat i ons of the compl ai ntas true and . . . cons true th o se a lleg a tio n s, a n d a n yre a so n a b le in fe re n c e s th a t m ig h t b e d ra w n f ro m th e m , in the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff. ” Id . O u rs t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w i s d e p e n d e n to n th e i s s u e u n d e re x a m i n a t i o n . We r evi ew the deni al of the di s qual i fi cat i on and r ecus al m ot i ons forabus e of d is c re tio n . C havezv. New Mexi co , 397 F. 3d 826, 839 ( 10th C i r . 2005) (d isq u a lific a tio n o f

c o u n se l); Uni t ed Stat es v. B urger , 964 F. 2d 1065, 1070 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ( r ecus al of pr es i di ng j udge) . T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s l egal-7-

det erm i nat i on t o di s m i s s w i th pr ej udi ce the cl ai m s fordecl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve re lie f a n d h is d a m a g e s c la im s w ith o u t p reju d ic e a re re v ie w e d d e n o v o . See Huntv. B e n n e tt , 1 7 F . 3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (dism issal fo r l eg al i n su ffici en cy ); R oss , 3 6 5 F . 3 d at 11 8 5 (dism issal fo r fa il u re to e x h au st) . A . D i s qual i fi cat i on of couns el and r ecus al of m agi s tr at e j udge M r. M itch e ll alle g e s th a t th e m a g istra te ju d g e h a d a d u tyto re c u se h im se lf beca us e he he l d a pr eform ed opi ni on on the ca s e and a l s o thatthe as s i s t antU ni t ed St at es att orneys houl d have be en di s qual i fi ed as couns el fordefe ndant s due t o a con fl i ctof int eres t . W e see no abu se of d i scr et i on i n either ruli ng becau se M r. M itc h e ll h a s a lle g e d n o fa c ts to s u p p o rt h is c la im s . See C havez , 397 F. 3d at 840 ( r equi r i ng evi dence of conf l i ctt o demonstr at e abus e of di s cr et i on i n deny i ng d isq u a lific a tio n m o tio n ); In r e McC ar they , 368 F. 3d 1266, 1269 ( 10th C i r . 2004) (r e q u ir in g re a s o n a b le fa c tu a l b a s is to q u e s tio n th e p re s id in g ju d g e ’s im p a rt ia lity). M r. M it ch ell ’s asse rt ed co n clus ion s, b eli efs, an d o p inion s are insu ffici en t t o fo rm a b a s is fo r d is q u a lific a tio n o r r e c u s a l. B . E xh aust i on of ad m i nis trat i ve rem edies M r . M i t chel l ’ s compl ai ntand s uppl ement al fi l i ngs as s ertthathe compl i ed w i th pr i s on pr ocedur es i n exhaus t i ng admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es forhi s damages c laim s a n d , ev e n if

h e d id n o t, he f

u llyp u rsu e d th e re m e d ies th a t w e re a v a ilab le to h im . T h e m a g istra te ju d g e d e ter m in e d th a t M r. M itch e ll h a d fa iled to m e e t h is b u rd e n o f

d e m o n stra tin g e x h a u stio n a n d re c o m m e n d e d d ism iss a l fo r fa ilu re toM r. M itch e ll alle g e s th a t th e g rie v a n c e p ro c e ss w a s n o t av a ilab le to h im 3 dur i ng cr i t i cal per i ods due t o i nj ur i es s us t ai ned i n the ce l l as s aul t , hos pi t al i zat i on, l ockdow n of the Speci al H ous i ng U ni t , and abs ence fr om cus t ody . W e not e that the magi s tr at e j udge eva l uat ed thes e al l egat i ons underthe ca us e- and- pr ej udi ce fra m ew o rk d ev elop ed in h ab ea s co rpu s ca ses to ex cu se p roc ed u ral de fa u lt . T h ere i s no need foran ana l ogyt o the l aw of habe as corpus . U nder§ 1997e( a) , the ques t i on i s s tr ai ght forw ar d: w hetherthe pr i s onerhas exhaus t ed “s uch admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as ar e ava i l abl e. ” See Under w ood v. Wi ls on , 151 F. 3d 292, 295 ( 5th C i r . 1998) ( not i ng thatPL R A does notdefi ne “a vai l abl e, ” and appl y i ng di ct i onarydefi ni t i ons of “c apabl e of a vai l i ng; havi ng s uffi ci entpow eror for ce t o achi eve a n end, . . . capa bl e of us e forthe ac compl i s hm entof a purpos e: im m e d ia te ly u tiliz a b le , . . . a c c e s s ib le o r m a yb e o b ta in e d ” ) ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). -8- s t at e a c l ai m . I n Jones , h o w e v e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t “fa ilu re to exhaus ti s an affi r m at i ve defens e underthe PL R A , and thati nm at es ar e not r equi r ed t o s peci al l ypl ead ordemonstr at e exha us t i on i n thei rcompl ai nt s . ” 2007 W L 135890, at*11. Si nce “ [e] xhaus t i on i s an affi r m at i ve defens e, the bur den of pr oof i s on the defendant s . ” D ole v. C ha nd l er, 4 3 8 F .3 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 9 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A ccord R ay v. Ker t es , 2 8 5 F .3 d 2 8 7 , 2 9 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); Ner nes s v. Johns on, 401 F . 3 d 8 7 4 , 8 7 6 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In li g h t of this si g n ifi ca n t shift i n the e v iden ti ary bur den, w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourts houl d be gi ven the opportuni tyi n the fi r s ti ns t ance t o eval uat e defendant s ’ pr oof of none xhaus t i on. 3 F u rth erm o re, th e d istri ct co u rt ’s de term ination that m o st of M r. M it ch ell ’s cl ai m s w er e notexhaus t ed l ed t o i t s deci s i on t o di s m i s s the ca s e underthe t ot al e x h a u s tio n ru le p re v io u s ly ap p lie d in th is c ir c u it. See R oss , 3 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 9 . T he Supr eme C our t , how ever , has r ej ect ed the pr opos i t i on thatthe PL R A demands a depa r tur e fr om the gene r al pr i nci pl e that“i f a c om pl ai ntcont ai ns both good and-9-

bad cl ai m s , the courtpr ocee ds w i th the good and l eave s the bad. O nl ythe bad cl ai m s ar e di s m i s s ed; the compl ai ntas a w hol e i s not . ” Jones , 2007 W L 135890, at*13 ( quot at i on and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . O n r emand, the di s tr i ctcourts houl d be m i ndful thatthe pr es ence of unexha us t ed cl ai m s does notr equi r e the di s m i s s al of M r. M itc h e ll’ s e n tir e c a s e . C . D ecl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef M r. M itch e ll also a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d ism iss in g w ith pr ej udi ce hi s cl ai m s fora dec l ar at oryj udgm entand i nj unct i ve r el i ef. W e not e that M r . M i t c h e l l i s n o l o n g e ra n i n ma t e a tUSP - F l o r e n c e . An i n ma t e ’ s tr a n s fe rf r o m a pr i s on fac i l i tygener al l ym oot s cl ai m s fordecl ar at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef r el at ed to c o n d itio n s o f

c o n fin e m e n t. See G r een v . B r ans on , 108 F. 3d 1296, 1299- 1300 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng thatr el eas e fr om pr i s on m oot s cl ai m s fordecl ar at oryand inju n c tiv e re lief); L o v e v . Su m m it C o u n ty , 7 7 6 F . 2 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 0 n . 4 , 9 1 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ( in d ic a tin g th a t th e g e n e ra l ru le a p p lie s to a tr a n s fe r b e tw e e n p ri s o n s ). B eca us e M r . M i t chel l has been tr ans ferr ed t o anotherfac i l i ty , hi s cl ai m s for d e c lar a to rya n d inju n c tiv e re lief a re m o o t. T h u s, th is c o u rt lac k s ju risd ictio n to cons i derthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng on M r . M i t chel l ’ s decl ar at oryj udgm entand inju n c tio n c la im s . See G r een , 108 F. 3d at1299. III . W e R E V E R SE A N D R E M A N D al l rul i ngs on exhaus t i on forfur ther pr ocee di ngs i n acc or dance w i th Jones , 2007 W L 135890, and thi s or derand-10-

j udgm ent . W e D I SM I SS t he dec l ar at oryj udgm entand i nj unct i ve r el i ef c l ai m s as mo o t . T h e r e ma i n d e ro f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s AF F I RMED .
E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge