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, alleging that defendants—

various correctional officers and the private company that runs the prison—violated 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines 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 Court
2 

his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his health and 

safety by failing to protect him from an attack by other inmates. 

The district court granted summary judgment against Gurley after determining 

that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prisoner 

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “No action shall be brought 

with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal 

law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such 

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 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). The prison grievance process 

determines whether an inmate has properly exhausted his claims. Jones v. Bock, 549 

U.S. 199, 218 (2007). 

Oklahoma Department of Corrections Policy OP-090124 sets out the procedure 

for exhausting administrative remedies in Oklahoma state prisons, including private 

prisons. First, the prisoner must attempt to informally resolve the matter with the 

affected staff, supervising employee, or other appropriate staff member within three 

days of the incident. If the matter is not resolved, the inmate must then submit a 

Request to Staff (RTS) to the law-library supervisor or designated staff member 

within seven days of the incident. If the matter 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 RTS, whichever is later. Finally, if the matter is still 

unresolved the inmate may apply to the administrative review authority or chief 
3 

medical officer, whichever is appropriate, within fifteen days of receiving the 

response to the grievance. All four steps are required for exhaustion of the inmate’s 

administrative remedies. 

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Baca v. 

Sklar, 398 F.3d 1210, 1216 (10th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate when 

“the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

No one disputes that Gurley was assaulted and injured by two other inmates. 

Nor does Gurley dispute that he has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Instead, he asserts that we should excuse his failure to exhaust because he was 

unaware of the requirement. Gurley acknowledges that he requested and received a 

civil-complaint form from the law-library supervisor, but he complains that the lawlibrary supervisor failed to advise him of the need to exhaust administrative 

procedures before filing his civil complaint. 

When a prison official prevents or hinders an inmate’s attempts to exhaust 

administrative remedies, we will excuse an inmate’s failure to exhaust administrative 

procedures. See Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1250 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Where prison 

officials prevent, thwart, or hinder a prisoner’s efforts to avail himself of an 

administrative remedy, they render that remedy ‘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 grievance within the policy time-limit makes an 
4 

administrative remedy unavailable). But here prison officials did 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 law-library supervisor did nothing to stop 

Gurley from pursuing administrative remedies or to make the process more difficult; 

rather, he gave Gurley the form he sought. Additionally, the form itself asks whether 

the inmate sought administrative relief and asks for an explanation if not, putting the 

inmate on notice that the administrative remedies are relevant. 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 requirement does not excuse an inmate’s 

failure to exhaust administrative procedures. Gurley’s use of the RTS procedure in a 

separate instance shows that he was at least aware of the administrative procedures 

and knew how the process worked. Under these circumstances, we cannot excuse 

Gurley’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Gurley’s claims for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We remind Gurley of 

his continuing obligation to make partial payments on his filing 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