T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h is co u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 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 

### N ove m b e r6,2006 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 AL VI N A. P AUL I NO, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, vs. ( FN U ) ( L N U ) , one unknow n deputyof th e U n ited S tate s M a rsh a l S e rv ice , in h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty ; W ALTER B R A D L E Y , i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty; CO RR E CT I ONS CO RP OR AT I ON OF AM ERI CA ; UN I TED STATES M AR SHA L SERVI CE, D efe ndant- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 3285 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 3 3 4 8 - S AC)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. ** A l vi n A . Paul i no, a fe der al i nm at e, appea r i ng pr o s e, appea l s the di s tr i ct c o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l wi th o u tp r ej u d i c e o f h i s c l a i ms b r o u g h ta g a i n s ta n u n k n o wnM r. P a u lin o file d h is o ri g in a l c o m p la in t in th is c a s e o n A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 . 1 H e al s o fi l ed a a n amended compl ai nton J anuary23, 2005, and an a m ended a nd s u p p le m e n te d c o m p la in t o n J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 . M r. P auli no i s curr entl yho used at a federal faci l i tyl ocated i n F orr est 2 C ity , A rk a n sa s. H e is s e rv in g a 5 7 m o n th se n ten c e fo r p o ss e ss io n o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . - 2 - d ep u tym arsh al of

the U n it ed S tat es M arsh al S erv ice w ith the fir st na m e G ary ( “D eputyM ar s hal G ary ”) , U ni t ed St at es M ar s hal W al t erB r adl ey( “M ar s hal B r adl ey ”) , the U ni t ed St at es M ar s hal Ser vi ce ( “U SM S”) , and C orr ect i ons C o rp o ra tio n o f

A m e ri c a (“ C C A ” ) p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1985( 3) , and B i vens v. Si x U nknow n Feder al N ar cot i cs A gent s , 403 U . S. 388 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Ou rj u r i s d i c t i o n a r i s e s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a ffi r m. M r. P a u lin o , in h is c o m p lain t, m a k e s n u m e ro u s a lleg a tio n s re latin g to h is 1 t empora ryi ncar cer at i on atC C A ’ s L eave nw or th, K ans as fac i l i tyw hi l e he w as aw ai t i ng tr ans fert o a Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons fac i l i ty . M r . Paul i no al l eges that 2 th e e v e n ts u n d e rl y in g h is c o m p la in t o c c u rr e d o n o r a f te r N o v e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 . Speci fi cal l y , M r . Paul i no br oughts ui tagai ns tD eputyM ar s hal G aryand M ar s hal B r adl ey , i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es , pur s uantt o B i vens and § 1983, al l egi ng, i nt eral i a, thattheyi nt ent i onal l ys ubj ect ed hi m t o cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent i n vi ol at i on of the Ei ghth A m endmentw hen theydeci ded t o pl ace hi m on “s ui ci de w a t c h . ” H e c l a i m s th a tb e c a u s e o f th i s d e c i s i o n h e w a s fo r c e d t o s p e n d fo u rd a ys a n d n ig h ts o n a c o ld , d a m p flo o r a n d w a s n o t allo w e d to c o m m u n ica te w ith h is fami l y . M r . Paul i no fur theral l eges thatD eputyM ar s hal G aryand M ar s hal- 3 -

B r adl ey ’ s deci s i ons r es ul t ed i n hi m bei ng: ( 1) pl ace d i n s ol i t aryconfi nementfor a n e x ten d e d p e rio d o f tim e w ith o u t ca u se o r e x p lan a tio n ; (2 ) d e n ied m e a ls num er ous t i m es ; ( 3) deni ed r equi r ed medi cal and ps y chol ogi cal exami nat i ons ; and ( 4) deni ed a he ar i ng r egar di ng hi s pl ace m enti n s ol i t aryconfi nementand on s ui ci de w at ch. M or eover , acc or di ng t o M r . Paul i no, D eputyM ar s hal G arym ade s ever al i nt ent i onal l yfal s e s t at ement s aboutM r . Paul i no thatcaus ed hi s cruel and u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. M r . Paul i no al s o br oughts ui tagai ns tU SM S and C C A pur s uantt o 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 5 (3 ), alle g in g th e tw o o rg a n iza tio n s c o n sp ire d to d e p riv e h im o f h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. M r. P a u lin o a ss e rts th a t U S M S a n d C C A c o n sp ire d to depr i ve hi m of “e qual pr ot ect i on of the l aw , and . . . equal pr i vi l eges and i m m uni t i es underthe l aw . ” R . D oc. 9 at12. M r . Paul i no cl ai m s thatthe defendant s ’ act i ons caus ed hi m t o devel op a s t om ach ul cer , t o devel op an aggr avat ed hea r tcondi t i on, and t o s uffe rm ent al and emot i onal di s tr es s . A ccor di ngl y , he s eeks compensa t orydamages , puni t i ve damages , and i nj unct i ve and de cl ar at oryr el i ef. W e re v iew d e n o v o a d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f a c o m p lain t fo r fa ilu re to e x h a u st a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies . P a tel v . F lem in g , 4 1 5 F .3 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 8 (1 0 th C ir .2 0 0 5 ). F a ilu re to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s a s re q u ir e d b y4 2 U .S .C . § 1997e( a) w i l l r es ul ti n di s m i s s al of the ca s e. B ooth v. C hurner , 532 U . S. 731, 741 (2 0 0 1 ). T h e sta tu te p ro v id e s th a t “[ n ]o a c tio n sh a ll b e b ro u g h t w ith re sp e c t toT hi s r emai ns the ca s e eve n w her e, as her e, s om e of the unexha us t ed 3 cl ai m s ar e br oughtagai ns ta pr i vat e pr i s on and/ ori t s empl oy ees . See B eaudryv. C orr . C orp. of A m . , 331 F. 3d 1164, 1165, 1167 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( di s m i s s i ng a § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a g a in st a p riv a te p riso n a n d se v e ra l o f its e m p lo y e e s fo r fa ilu re to e x h a u s t) . - 4 - p r i s o n c o n d i t i o n s u n d e rs e c t i o n 1 9 8 3 o f th i s t i t l e , o ra n y o th e rF e d e r a l l a w , b y a 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 a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s a s a re a v a ila b le a re e x h a u s te d .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). T hi s exhaus t i on r equi r ement“appl i es t o al l i nm at e s ui t s aboutpr i s on l i fe, w hether theyi nvol ve gene r al ci r cumst ance s orpart i cul arepi s odes , and w hethertheyal l ege exce s s i ve for ce ors om e otherw r ong. ” Por t erv. N us s l e, 534 U . S. 516, 532 (20 0 2 ). “A l i t i gant ’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e i s s ues dur i ng an admi ni s tr at i ve appe al can cons t i tut e a fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . ” K i kum ur a v. H ur l ey , 242 F. 3d 950, 956 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . W e r ece nt l yexpl ai ned that“a gr i evanc e s at i s fi es § 1 9 9 7 e (a )’s e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t so lo n g a s it p ro v id e s p riso n o fficia ls w ith enough i nform at i on t o i nves t i gat e and a ddr es s the i nm at e’ s compl ai nti nt ernal l y . ” K i kum ur a v. O s agi e, 461 F. 3d 1269, 1285 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . M or eover , w e have hel d “thatthe pr es ence of unexha us t ed cl ai m s i n [a pr i s oner ’ s ] compl ai nt r equi r e[s ] the di s tr i ctcourtt o di s m i s s hi s act i on i n i t s ent i r etyw i thoutpr ej udi ce. ” R o ss v . C o u n tyo f B ern ali ll o , 3 6 5 F . 3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 8 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 3 In h is on lyg ri ev an ce to p ri so n o ffici als, d ated Jan u ary3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , M r. Paul i no cl ai m ed a ge ner al depr i vat i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s on N ovember- 5 -

1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , w h e n “ a d e p u tyo f th e U n ited S tate s M a rsh a l S e rv ice ” d e lib e ra tely viol at ed h i s ci vil ri gh t s i n ret al i at i on for hi s cr i m e and for “speaking the w ords I di d t o the U . S. D i s tr i ctC our tw ho s ent ence d m e. ” M r . Paul i no fur theral l eged thatthe r et al i at i on i ncl uded “puni t i ve pl ace m ent ” on s ui ci de w at ch for a p p ro x im a telyth irtyd a y s. T h e se a lleg a tio n s, a s th e d istric t co u rt n o ted , o n ly im p lica te D e p u tyM a rsh a l G a rya n d d id n o t p u t p riso n o fficia ls o n n o tice a s to a n y o f th e o th e rc l a i m s l a t e rb r o u g h ta g a i n s tM a r s h a l B r a d l e y. T he di s tr i ctcourtpoi nt ed outthe exha us t i on pr obl em, as w el l as m any o th e r d e ficie n c ies in th e c o m p lain t an d a llo w e d M r. P a u lin o lea v e to a m e n d to demonstr at e exha us t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es and cur e the def i ci enci es . For s ubs t ant i al l ythe r eas ons s etfor th bythe di s tr i ctcourtaft eri texami ned the a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, w e a g re e th a t th e a c tio n m u st b e d ism iss e d fo r fa ilu re to exhaus t . R . D oc. 16 at1- 4. A l though w e do notdi s agr ee w i th the bal ance of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r eas oni ng conce rni ng w hetherthe compl ai nts t at es a cl ai m , w e do no tadd res s tho se i ssues gi ven that the judgm ent i n thi s case pl ai nlyst at es i ti s a di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce. R . D oc. 17; s ee Semt ek I nt ern. I nc. v. L ockhee d M a rtin C o rp ., 5 3 1 U .S . 4 9 7 , 5 0 5 (2 0 0 1 ) (“ [ A ]n ‘a dju d ica tio n u p o n th e m e rits’ is the o p p o sit e o f a ‘dism issal w ith o u t prejud ice.’ ”). W e n o te th a t in a n a ttem p t to a v o id th e P L R A ’s e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t, M r . Paul i no ci t es t o G arr ettv. H aw k, 127 F. 3d 1263 ( 10th C i r . 1997) , forthe propo si t i on that “pr i soners w ho fi l e B i ven s cl ai m s for m on et arydam ages ag ai nst- 6 -

pr i s on offi ci al s ar e notr equi r ed t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es underthe PL R A . . . . ” A pl t . B r . at2. M r . Paul i no i s corr ectr egar di ng G arr ett ’ s hol di ng; how ever , B ooth overrul ed G arr ettoverfi ve y ear s ago and w e have s i nce r emar ked that“[e ] ven w her e the ‘ avai l abl e’ r emedi es w oul d appea rt o be fut i l e atpr ovi di ng the ki nd of r emedys ought , the pr i s onerm us texhaus tthe admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e. ” J erni gan v. Stuchel l , 304 F. 3d 1030, 1032 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng B o o th , 5 3 2 U .S . at 7 4 0 ). A s a re su lt, M r. P a u lin o w a s n o t ex c u se d f ro m f u lly exhaus t i ng. A FFIRM E D . W e r emi nd M r . Paul i no of hi s cont i nui ng obl i gat i on t o pay h is filin g fe e in p a rt ia l p a ym e n ts . 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