UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ TERRILL DEWAYNE GURLEY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. FNU CLARK, Lt; FNU DAWSON, Sgt; FNU KINNDER, C O; FNU LIVINGSTON, C O; FNU NEIAL, C O; GEO GROUP INC; H A RIOS, JR., Warden, Defendants - Appellees. No. 15-6105 (D.C. No. 5:14- CV-00381-M) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , MURPHY , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Appellant Terrill D. Gurley, Jr. appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Gurley is a state prisoner at Lawton Correctional Facility, a private prison. Gurley raised a single claim, alle ging that defendants— various correctional officers and the privat e company that runs the prison—violated

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Ci r. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 26, 2015
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his health and safety by failing to protect him fr om an attack by other inmates. The district court granted summary judgm ent against Gurley after determining that he failed to exhaust administra tive remedies as re quired by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “No acti on shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under secti on 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, pris on, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhauste d.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion requires meeting all necessary steps within the applicable filing deadlines. Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). Th e prison grievance process determines whether an inmate ha s properly exhausted his claims. Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). Oklahoma Department of Corrections Po licy OP-090124 sets out the procedure for exhausting administrative remedies in Oklahoma state pris ons, including private prisons. First, the prisoner mu st attempt to info rmally resolve th e matter with the affected staff, supervising employee, or other appropriat e staff member within three days of the incident. If th e matter is not reso lved, the inmate mu st then submit a Request to Staff (RTS) to the law-library supervisor or designated staff member within seven days of the incident. If the ma tter is still unresolved, the inmate may file a grievance with the reviewing authority within fifteen days of the incident or of the staff’s response to the RT S, whichever is later. Finally, if the matter is still unresolved the inmate may apply to the ad ministrative review authority or chief3 medical officer, whichever is appropriate, within fift een days of receiving the response to the grievance. All four steps are required fo r exhaustion of the inmate’s administrative remedies. We review de novo a district c ourt’s grant of summary judgment. Baca v. Sklar , 398 F.3d 1210, 1216 (10th Cir. 2005). Su mmary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgm ent as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). No one disputes that Gurley was assa ulted and injured by two other inmates. Nor does Gurley dispute that he has fail ed to exhaust administrative remedies. Instead, he asserts that we should excuse his failure to exhaust because he was unaware of the requirement. Gurley acknow ledges that he requested and received a civil-complaint form from the law-library s upervisor, but he comp lains that the lawlibrary supervisor failed to advise hi m of the need to e xhaust administrative procedures before filing his civil complaint. When a prison official prevents or hinde rs an inmate’s a ttempts to exhaust administrative remedies, we w ill excuse an inma te’s failure to e xhaust administrative procedures. See Little v. Jones , 607 F.3d 1245, 1250 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Where prison officials prevent, thwart, or hinder a pr isoner’s efforts to avail himself of an administrative remedy, they render that re medy ‘unavailable’ and a court will excuse the prisoner’s failure to exhaust.” (citing Lyon v. Vande Krol , 305 F.3d 806, 808 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc))); Jernigan v. Stuchell , 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) (finding that failure to respond to a grieva nce within the policy time-limit makes an4 administrative remedy unavailable). But here prison officials di d not fail to respond to Gurley’s requests or actively block the grievance process. We see that Gurley asked about filing a civil complaint. The la w-library supervisor did nothing to stop Gurley from pursuing administrative remedies or to make the pro cess more difficult; rather, he gave Gurley the fo rm he sought. Additionally, th e form itself asks whether the inmate sought administra tive relief and asks for an e xplanation if not, putting the inmate on notice that the admi nistrative remedies are rele vant. In both his complaint and his amended complaint, Gurley checked “No” but did not give an explanation in the space below. Lack of knowledge of the exhaustion re quirement does not excuse an inmate’s failure to exhaust administra tive procedures. Gurley’s use of the RTS procedure in a separate instance shows that he was at le ast aware of the admi nistrative procedures and knew how the process worked. Under these circumstances, we cannot excuse Gurley’s failure to exhaus t administrative remedies. We AFFIRM the district c ourt’s dismissal of Gurley’s claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedi es under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a ). We remind Gurley of his continuing obligation to make partial payments on his fili ng fee until the entire fee has been paid. The motion for extension of time to file a reply brief is denied.

Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge