T hi s or derand j udgm enti s 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, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u 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. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay1,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT DO M I NI C G RO LL, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. BO BBY J OH NSO N; J OE O RTI Z, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1540 ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 1 7 3 9 - Z L W)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ** P lain tiff-A p p e llan t D o m in ic G ro ll, a sta te in m a te a p p e a rin g p ro se , ap p e a ls f r o m th e d i s mi s s a l o f

h i s c i v i l r i g h t s l a ws u i tp u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 . He compl ai ns thathe w as s ubj ect ed t o uns afe and di s cr i m i nat oryw or ki ng condi t i ons and r et al i at ed aga i ns tforcompl ai ni ng aboutthem w hi l e he w as confi ned atthe R ifle C o rre c tio n a l C e n ter in R ifle, C o lo ra d o . T h e m a g istra te ju d g e a ss ig n e d to- 2 -

the ca s e or der ed M r . G r ol l t o s how caus e w hyhi s l aw s ui ts houl d notbe di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . See i d. § 1997e( a) ( “N o act i on s h a l l b e b r o u g h twi th r e s p e c tt o p r i s o n c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r. . . a n y. . . F e d e r a l l a w, bya pr i s onerconfi 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 have been e xhaus t ed. ”) . M r . G r ol l fi l ed a re sp o n se c o n ten d in g th a t h e h a d e x h a u ste d h is a v a ilab le r e m e d ies w ith re sp e c t to one of the cl ai m s and thatpr i s on offi ci al s had pr event ed hi m fr om exhaus t i ng the other . O n D ece m ber4, 2006, the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the l aw s ui t , hol di ng that M r . G r ol l had fa i l ed t o abi de byourt ot al exhaus t i on r equi r ementforpr i s oner s ui t s . See R . D oc. 7, at3- 4 ( ci t i ng R os s v. C ountyof B ernal i l l o, 365 F. 3d 1181, 1 1 8 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )). L es s than a mont h l at er , the Supr eme C our tr ej ect ed the t ot al exhaus t i on rul e i n J ones v. B ock, — U . S.

— , 127 S. C t . 910, 924- 26 ( 2007) ( “[I ] f a c om pl ai nt cont ai ns both good and bad c l ai m s , the courtpr ocee ds w i th the good and l eave s th e b a d .”). It f

u rth e r d e ter m in e d th a t ex h a u stio n is a n a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se , n o t a pl eadi ng r equi r ement . I d. at921. T hus , di s tr i ctcourt s now m ayr ai s e exha us t i on s ua s pont e onl yi n “r ar e ca s es ” w her e “i ti s cl earfr om the fa ce of the compl ai nt that the p ri so n er h as n o t exh au sted h is ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies. ” A q u il arA v ell av ed a v . T errell , 4 7 8 F . 3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 2 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T h i s i s n o to n e o f

th o s e r a r e c a s e s . M r . Gr o l l ’ s p r o s e c o mp l a i n t , wh i c h we co n stru e li b era ll y , see H aine s v . K ern er, 40 4 U . S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -21 (19 7 2 ),- 3 -

d o c u me n t e d th e g r i e v a n c e s h e fi l e d wi th r e s p e c tt o h i s wo r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s , s e e R. D oc. 3, at4. A l though M r . G r ol l di d notal l ege thathe exha us t ed hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m , he att ache d a l ett ert o D efe ndantW ar den B obbyJ ohns on compl ai ni ng a b o u t th e situ a tio n . S e e id . E x . A . H e late r m a d e c lea r th a t h e h a d a ttem p ted to p u rsu e a re talia tio n g rie v a n c e b u t th a t W a rd e n Jo h n so n re f u se d to p ro v id e h im wi th a g r i e v a n c e fo r m b e c a u s e h i s c o mp l a i n td i d n o tr a i s e a g r i e v a b l e i s s u e . R. D oc. 6, at3. T he D efe ndant s have notr es ponded t o thes e al l egat i ons , norhave theyr ai s ed fa i l ur e t o exhaus tas an affi r m at i ve defens e. A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ct courterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng M r . G r ol l ’ s l aw s ui t . See Fr eeman v. W atki ns , 479 F. 3d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). E xer ci s i ng ourj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e V A C A T E the deci s i on bel ow and R E M A N D forfur therpr ocee di ngs . O n r emand, the D e fe n d a n ts m a yra ise a n ya p p lica b le d e fe n se s. M r. G ro ll’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in form a paupe r i s pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915 i s G R A N T E D , and he i s r emi nded of h is o b lig a tio n to c o n tin u e m a k in g p a rtial p a ym e n ts u n til th e fili n g fe e is p a id in f u ll. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge