A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h is c a se is ther efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he 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, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10 C i r c. R . 32. 1. th 

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

### M ar c h 1,2007 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 BE NNY R . S M I T H,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 3272 v. D i s tr i ctof K ans as C. COW M AN, Ce l l h o u s e S a r g e n t ; R. H U N T , D isci p li n aryH ea ri n g O fficer,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CV- 3 0 5 8 - S AC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. O n February27, 2006, M r . Sm i th fi l ed a § 1983 c l ai m conce rni ng di s ci pl i naryact i ons t aken a gai ns thi m bypr i s on offi cer s , act i ons he cons i der ed both fr audul entand r et al i at ory . O n M ar ch 1, 2006, t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof K ans as rul ed thatt he pet i t i onerhad notpr ovi ded pr oof of compl et i ng the gr i evanc e pr oces s ort he di s ci pl i naryappea l pr oces s , and thus had-2-

notdemonstr at ed an e xhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , as r equi r ed by42 U . S. C . § 1997e. T he courtgave hi m s i xt een da y s t o do s o. M r . Sm i th fi l ed an in te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l, w h ic h th is c o u rt d is m is s e d fo r l a c k o f ju ri s d ic tio n o n J u n e 8 . O n J une 13, the di s tr i ctcourt , not i ng t hatthe defendanthad s t i l l notpr ovi ded pr oof of hi s admi ni s tr at i ve appe al , di s m i s s ed the ac t i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce, s t at i ng that: “‘a pr i soner m ustprovide a com prehen si ble s t at em ent of his cl ai m and al so ei theratt ach c opi es of admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs ordes cr i be thei rdi s pos i t i on w i th s peci fi ci ty . ’ ” R . , D oc. 11 at2 ( quot i ng St eele v. Fed. B ur eau of P r is ons , 355 F .3 d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 1 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )) . O verthe nexts ever al w eeks , M r . Sm i th fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, a m o tio n fo r c e rt ific a te o f a p p e a la b ility, a n d a “ m o tio n to s e t th e re c o rd s tr a ig h t.” B ec au se th is i s a § 1 9 8 3 ac ti o n , n o t a ha b ea s co rpu s ac ti o n , the d istri ct co u rt p rop erlyruled that the a p p li ca ti o n fo r a c erti fica te of ap p ea labili tyw as m o o t. It m ade no rul i ng on t he “mot i on t o s etthe r ecor d s tr ai ght , ” w hi ch w as a r ei t er at i on o f th e d e fe n d a n t’ s fa c tu a l c o m p la in ts , a lo n g w ith th e a d d itio n o f s o m e n e w o n e s . T he courti nt erpr et ed the mot i on forr econs i der at i on as a mot i on t o al t eror a m e n d th e ju d g e m e n t u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 9 (e ). In th a t m o tio n , M r. S m ith st at ed thathe w as unab l e t o p roduce a cop yof ad m i nis trat i ve p roceedings becau se pr i s on guar ds had s t ol en the pape r s fr om hi s cel l . H e di d, how ever , pr ovi de the dis tri ctcou rti nit i al cop i es of t he g ri evan ces, and he d escr i bed the ap peal pr ocess as fol l ow s : “he s ubm i t t ed an appeal ar gum entt o the Secr et aryof C orr ect i on on-3-

F eb rua ry1 3 , [2 0 ]06 in reg ard s to h is co n v ict ion o f a fa lse ch arg e o f w o rk per form ance i n cas e no. 06- 01- 081E . A nd r ece i ved a de ci s i on back f r om the Sec. of C orr ect s . aff

i r m i ng t he convi ct i on s t at i ng ‘ bas ed on s om e evi dence . ’ ” R . D oc. 1 3 , at 1 . T h e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th e n e w e v id e n c e in su fficie n t to d istu rb its e a rl ie r r u lin g a n d d e n ie d M r. S m ith ’s m o tio n fo r r e c o n s id e ra tio n o n J u ly 1 9 . W e affi r m ed the di s tr i ctcour trul i ng i n an unpubl i s hed opi ni on on D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 . Sm i th v. C ow m an , 2006 W L 3616720 ( 10th C i r . D ec. 13, 2 0 0 6 ). S h o rt lythere af ter, the S u p rem e C o u rtset fo rth a n ew stan d ard to g o v ern PL R A l aw s ui t s : “fa i l ur e t o exhaus ti s an affi r m at i ve defens e underthe PL R A , and

. . . inm a tes a re n o t re q u ire d to sp e c iallyp lea d o r d e m o n stra te e x h a u stio n in th e ir compl ai nt s . ” Jones v. B ock , ___ U . S. ___, 2007 W L 135890, at*11 ( J an. 22, 2 0 0 7 ). A cc o rdin g ly , the b u rde n n o w fa ll s o n the d efen d an ts t o sh o w that M r. S m ith d id n o t e x h a u s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . M r . Sm i th fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr ehea r i ng. I n i t s r es pons e, the governm ent conce ded thatt he ca s e s houl d be r emanded i n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece nt deci s i on i n Jon es v. B ock, s up ra . W e a g re e . T he p et i t i on for r eheari ng i s GR ANTED , the p re v io u s d e c isio n o f th is C ou rt , 20 06 W L 36 16 72 0 (10th C i r. D ec. 13 , 20 06 ), i s VAC ATED , and the ju d g m e n t o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e D istric t o f K a n sa s is REVERSED and REM AND ED forr econs i der at i on i n l i ghtof Jones v. B ock . A p p e llan t’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d w ith o u t p re p a ym e n ts o f c o sts o r fe e s is-4-

G R A N T E D . T hi s courtr emi nds M r . Sm i th of hi s obl i gat i on t o cont i nue maki ng p a rtial p a ym e n ts o f

th e a p p e llate fili n g fe e u n til p a id in f u ll. T h e p e tit io n fo r re h e a rin g e n b a n c h a v in g b e e n c irc u late d to th e f u ll co u rt, and no j udge i n act i ve s ervi ce ha vi ng cal l ed fora pol l , t he pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng en banc i s ther efor e DENI ED . E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge