FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 18, 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- 11132 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 07 -C V -3 M E N A C H E M P R I - H A R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C O R R E C T I O N S C O R P O R A T I O N O F A M E R I C A , I N C ., J O E D . S N O D D Y , C U R T I S A . R A N U M , G A L E Y G A T E S , 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

_________________________ ( N ove m be r18, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

O n appe a l , M e na c he m P r i - H a r , apr i s one rpr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the e ntryof s um m a ryj udgm e nta ga i ns thi m i n hi s di ve r s i tya c t i on a nd the de ni a l by the di stri ctcourtof hi s m ot i on for r ec usal . T he di stri ctcourtent er ed sum m ary ju d g m e n t b a s e d o n P r i- H a r ’s f a ilu r e to e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s p u r s u a n t to th e P r is o n L itig a tio n R e f o rm A c t ( “P L R A ” ) , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) . P r i- H a ris af

e d e r a l p r is o n e rc o n f

in e din M c R a e C o rr e c tio n a l F a c ility , a pr i s on ope r a t e d byC orr e c t i ons C orpor a t i on of A m e r i c a( “ C C A ” ) pur s ua ntt o a c ontr a c tw i th the B ur e au of P r i s ons ( “ B O P ” ) . P r i - H a ra r gue s tha the w a s not su b j ectt o th e ex h au st i o n req u i rem en to f § 1 9 9 7 e(a), and th ath e n ev erth el ess c o m p lie d w ith § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) b ye x h au s tin g h is av a ilab le a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . P r i - H a rf urthe ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ngs de m ons tr a t e d al a c k of i m part i al i ty s uffi ci entt o w arrantre cusa l un der 28 U . S . C . § 4 55 (a ). W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ryj udgm e ntde novo. S krt i c h v. T h o rto n , 2 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 2 9 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e m o v in g p a rtyis e n title dto s um m a ryj udgm e nt“ i f

the pl e a di ngs , de pos i t i ons , a ns w e r s t o i nt e rr oga t or i e s , a nd a dm i s s i ons on f

i l e , t oge the rw i th the a f

f i da vi t s , i f

a ny , s how tha tthe r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a nym a t e r i a l f a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa rtyi s e nt i t l e d t o a j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). If the no n-m ov i ng party bears th e u l t i m at e b u rd en o f p ro o f reg ard i n g th e cl ai m ati ssu e i n th e m o t i o n , th atp arty,3

i n r e s pons e t o the m ot i on, m us tgo be y ond the pl e a di ngs a nd e s t abl i s h, thr ough com pet entevi dence, thatthere trul y i s agenu i ne, m at er i al i ss ue t o b e tri ed. C el ot ex C orp. v. C atre tt , 47 7 U . S . 31 7, 32 4, 10 6 S . C t . 25 48 , 91 L . E d. 2d 26 5 (19 86 ).

“ W he n de c i di ng w he the rs um m a ryj udgm e nti s appr opr i a t e , a l l e vi de nc e a nd reaso n ab l e factu al i n feren ces d raw n th erefro m are rev i ew ed i n a l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng pa rty . ” R oj a s v. F l or i da , 285 F . 3d 1339, 1341- 42 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . W e a l s o r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the P L R A de novo. T r ovi l l e v. V e nz , 303 F . 3d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 5 9 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e f u s a l to r e c u s e its e lf th f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . B iv e n s G a r d e n s O f f ic e B ld g ., I n c . v . B a rn e tt B a n k s o f F la ., I n c ., 1 4 0 F .3 d 8 9 8 , 9 0 5 ( 1 1 C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . th P r i- H a rf ir s t a r g u e s th a t a s af

e d e r a l p r is o n e rin ap r iv a te lyru n p r is o n h e is notr e qui r e d t o e xhaus tC C A ’ s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s be c aus e the B O P l a c ks the l egal autho ri ty t o p l ac e hi m i n a pri vat e f ac i l i ty. T hu s, P ri -H arre as on s, he sa t i sf i ed the r e qui r e m e nt s of

§ 1997e ( a ) . P r i ort o 1996, the P L R A ’ s e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e nt onl yappl i e d t o s t a t e pr i s one r s . P ort e rv. N us s l e , 534 U . S . 516, 523, 122 S . C t . 983, 9 8 7 , 1 5 2 L . E d . 2 d 1 2 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . As a m e n d e di n 1 9 9 6 , th e P L R A n o w s t a t e s , “ No a c tio n s h a ll b e b r o u g h t w ith r e s p e c t to p r is o n c o n d itio n s u n d e rs e c tio n 1 9 8 3 o f th is t i t l e, or any other F eder al l aw , by a pri soner c on fi ned i n any j ai l , pri son, or other4

corr ec t i on al fa ci l i ty unt i l such adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es as ar e avai l abl e are e x h au s te d .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) . W e h a v e h e ldth a t § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) “n o w ap p lie s to both f e de r a l a nd s t a t e pr i s one r s . ” A l e xa nde rv. H a w k, 159 F . 3d 1321, 1325 ( 11 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . B yits te rm s , § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) ap p lie s to p r is o n e r s c o n f in e din “a n y ” p r is o n . A c c or di ngl y , § 1997e ( a ) appl i e s t o f e de r a l c r i m i na l pr i s one r s i n a nypr i s on, reg ard l ess o f w h eth er i ti s a fed eral p ri so n o r a p ri v at el y o p erat ed faci l i ty. P ri -H arnextar gu es thathe w as no tre qu i re d t o exh austC C A ’ s gri evance pr oc e dur e , butonl yt o e xhaus tthe B O P pr oc e dur e , be c aus e C C A di d notha ve the l egal or contra ctual autho ri ty t o cre at e agri evance proce du re . S ec t i on 19 97 e( a) ’ s m andat e t o exh aust“ such adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es as ar e avai l abl e” i s m andat ory. John son v . M ea do w s, 41 8 F . 3d 11 52 , 11 55 (11 C i r. th 20 05 ), pet i t i on for c ert . fi l ed, (N o. 05 -633 6) (S ept . 8, 20 05 ). W e have i nt erpret ed the t e rm “ a va i l abl e ” a s us e d i n thi s s e c t i on a s a c know l e dgi ng tha t“ nota l l pr i s ons a c tu a llyh a v e a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d yp r o g r am s .” A le x a n d e r , 1 5 9 F .3 da t 1 3 2 6 . W e have al so hel d thatw hen a st at e provi des agri evance proce du re , st at e i nm at es m us te xhaus ttha tpr oc e dur e be f or e f i l i ng s ui ti n f

e de r a l c ourt . J ohns on, 418 F . 3d a t1 1 5 6 ( q u o t i n g Br o w n v . Si k e s , 2 1 2 F. 3 d1 2 0 5 , 1 2 0 7 ( 1 1 Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . CCA th m a d e ag r ie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e a v a ilab le to its in m a te s . B e c au s e P r i- H a rw a s ab le to u tiliz e th a t g r ie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e , h e w a s r e qu ir e dto e x h au s t it b e f o r e f ilin g h is5

la w s u it. P ri -H arnextar gu es thata di sposi t i on atthe i ni t i al st age of the gri evance procedure by the W ar den o r hi s a ss oci at es bo th rendered C C A ’ s gri evance pr oc e dur e s f

ut i l e a nd e xhaus t e d hi s a va i l abl e a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s . W e do not re vi ew the ef

fe ct i veness of avai l abl e a dm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es . M i l l erv. T anner, 1 9 6 F .3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 3 ( 1 1 C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . F u rth e rm o r e , a n a s s e rtio n th a t a v a ilab le th a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e d u r e s a r e f u tile d o e s n o t e x c u s e th e r e q u ir e m e n t o f e x h au s tio n . H ig g in b o tt o m v . C ar ter, 2 2 3 F .3 d1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 1 (1 1 C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). P ri-H ar ’s th ar gu m ent s t ake i ss ue w i th the m anner i n w hi ch C C A ’ s a dm i ni stra t i ve procedures ar e s tru ctu re d , ch allen g in g th eir a d eq u ac y a n def fe ctiv en es s. A lth o u g h C C A ’s gri evance proce du re s w er e a vai l abl e w i thi n the m eani ng of § 1 99 7e(a ), and P ri -H ar w as re qu i re d t o exh austthem before fi l i ng sui t , there i s no evi dence thatP ri -H ar c o m p le te d a ll th e r e m a in in g s te p s o f C C A ’s g r ie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e . T h e r e f o r e , P r iH ar fai l ed t o ex h au sth i s av ai l ab l e ad m i n i strat i v e rem ed i es. P ri -H ar ’ s f

i nal cont ent i on re gardi ng the grantof sum m ary j ud gm enti s that C C A ’ s g ri ev an ce p ro ced u re l ack ed t i m e l i m i t s fo r resp o n ses b y p ri so n o ffi ci al s, th a t th e f a ilu r e to im p le m e n t tim e lim its , in a n do f its e lf , e x h au s te dh is adm i ni stra t i ve re m edi es , and thatby no thavi ng a t i m el y r es po nse t o h i s gri evances he s a t i s f i e d the e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e nt . A s ar e s ul tof the 1996 a m e ndm e ntof the6

P L R A , a dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s a r e no l onge rr e qui r e d t o be pl a i n, s pe e dy , a nd e f f e c t i ve . P ort e r , 534 U . S . a t524, 122 S . C t . a t988. W e r e c ogni z e d tha t“ [ t ] he re m o v al o f th e q u alifiers ‘p lain , sp ee d y, an def fe ctiv e’ fr o m th e P L R A ’s m a n d a to rye x h au s tio n r e q u ir e m e n t in d ic a te s th a t C o n g r e s s n o lo n g e rw a n te dc o u rts to e x a m in e th e e f

f e c tiv e n e s s o f

a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s b u t r a th e rto f o c u s s o le ly on w hether an adm i ni stra t i ve re m edy i s ‘ avai l abl e’ i n the pri son i nv ol ved. ” A le x a n d e r , 1 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 6 . B e c au s e a n a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d yd o e s n o t h a v e to b e s p e e d y , th e ab s e n c e o f atim e f r a m e in w h ic h p r is o n o f f ic ia ls m u s t r e s p o n dto gri evances do es no tper s e s at i sf y the exhaust i on re qu i re m entof § 1 99 7e(a ). In thi s c a s e , the r e i s no e vi de nc e of af a i l ur e t o r e s pond tha tpr e ve nt e d P r i - H a rf r om ut i l i zi ng C C A ’ s gri evance s ys t em . P ri -H ar ’ s f ou r gri evance f

orm s, w hi ch appear t o b e a tst ep three i n C C A ’ s f i ve st ep proces s, w er e s ub m i tt ed by P ri -H arbetw ee n D ec em ber 15, 20 03 , and January8, 20 04 . P ri H ar ’ s c om pl ai ntw as dat ed Janu ary 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d f

i l e d J a n u a ry2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , ap p r o x i ma t e l yo n e mo n th l a t e r . A tth e t i me the c om pl a i ntw a s f

i l e d, the C C A M a na gi ng D i r e c t orf orD i vi s i on I V , w ho re spon ded atst ep fi ve, had n otre spon ded t o h i s gri evances . P ri -H ar , there fore , f a i l e d t o e x h au s th i s a v a i l ab l e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s a s r e q u i r e db yth e PLRA b e f o r e f ilin g th is la w s u it. F in a lly , P r i- H a ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e din r e f u s in g to r e c u s e its e lf7

un der 28 U . S . C . § 4 55 (a ) bas ed on the l ac k o f an extra j ud i ci al source for bi as b e c au s e th e c o u rt’s ru lin g s th e m s e lv e s r e f le c te dala c ko f

im p a rtia litys u f

f ic ie n t to w arrantre cusa l . T he st andard for re cusa l un der § 45 5 i s “ w hether an o bj ec t i ve, fu ll y in fo rm ed lay o b se rv erw o u lden tertain sig n ifican t d o u b t ab o u t th e ju d g e’s i m pa rt i a l i ty . ” C hr i s t o v. P a dge tt , 223 F . 3d 1324, 1333 ( 11 C i r . 2000) . T he th e xtr a j udi c i a l s our c e doc tr i ne appl i e s t o § 455( a ) , buti ti s notthe e xc l us i ve ba s i s f or r e c us a l . L i t e kyv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 510 U . S . 540, 551, 554- 55, 114 S . C t . 1147, 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 5 7 , 1 2 7 L . E d . 2 d 4 7 4 (1 9 9 4 ). A l th o u g h j u d i ci al ru l i n g s al o n e “ al m o st n e v e rc o n s titu te av a lidb a s is f o rab ia s o rp a rtia litym o tio n ,” th e ya r e av a lidb a s is “if th e yr e v e a l s u c h ah ig h d e g r e e o f f a v o r itis m o ra n ta g o n is m a s to m a k e f a ir j udgm e nti m pos s i bl e . ” I d. 510 U . S . a t555, 114 S . C t . a t1157. T he r e c om m e nda t i on of

the m a gi s tr a t e a nd or de r s of the di s tr i c tc ourtdo notr e f l e c tthe a n ta g o n is m o n th e p a rt o f e ith e rju d g e th a t w o u ldm a k e f a irju d g m e n t im p o s s ib le . A cc o rd in g ly, th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in d en yin g P ri-H ar ’s m o tio n f o rr e c u s a l. U pon r e vi e w of

the di s tr i c tc ourtr e c or d a nd the pa rt i e s ’ br i e f s , w e f i nd no r e v e r s ib le e rr o r . AF F I RME D.