## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 1 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MARC PIERRE HALL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, a municipality; CHARLOTTE POLICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, Police Department; SCOTT E. SHIPMAN, Detective, in official and individual capacity; JESSEE WALDON and Firm of Partnerships, in official and individual capacity; CHARLES L. MORGAN, Attorney and Firm of Partnerships, et al., in official and individual capacities; JOHN BOUTWELL, Attorney and Firm of Partnerships, et al., in official and individual capacities; JOHN CACHERIS, Attorney and Firm of Partnerships, et al., in official and individual capacities; JAMES GRONQUIST, Attorney and Firm of Partnerships, et al., in official and individual capacities,

Defendants, and (FNU) TUCKER, Officer, Bureau of Prisons, in his official and individual No. 04-3142 (D.C. No. 02-CV-3214-GTV)

(D. Kan.)* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. -2- capacities; (FNU) MOSS, Officer, Bureau of Prisons, in his official and individual capacities; (FNU) HUGHES, Officer, Bureau of Prisons, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRISCOE , ANDERSON , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This case originated in the District Court for the District of Columbia where Appellant Marc Pierre Hall, a federal inmate, filed his complaint in 1998. The case was subsequently transferred to the Distri ct of Colorado, and was1 42 U.S.C. § 1997e reads, in pertinent part:

(a) Applicability of administrative remedies No action shall be brought with respect to prison c onditions 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 exhaus ted.

. . . . (c) Dismissal (1) The court shall on its own motion or on the mot ion of a party dismiss any action brought with respect to prison c onditions under (continued...) -3- transferred again to the United States District Cou rt for the District of Kansas. Along the way, various parties and claims were dism issed until the Kansas district court dismissed the remaining claims without prejud ice on March 30, 2004. At the time of the transfer to the Kansas district court, the only defendants remaining in the case were Tucker, Moss, and Hughes , three officers of the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas ( subsequently and collectively “Appellees”). Hall sought monetary damages againstthe officers, claiming they had violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by assaulting him or failing to intervene to protect him from harm. Appellees m oved for summary judgment on the basis that Hall had not properly exhausted h is administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. 1 Appellees argued that the Supreme Court’s1 (...continued)

section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility if the court is satisfied that the action is frivolous, maliciou s, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks mo netary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

2 The plaintiff in Garrett had also sought only monetary relief against individual officers for alleged violations of his c onstitutional rights and this court held that, although 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) required t he exhaustion of “such administrative remedies as are available ,” (emphasis added), since no administrative remedy would provide monetary relief , exhaustion was not required. Garrett, 127 F.3d at 1266-67. -4- opinion in Booth v. Churner , 532 U.S. 731 (2001), required exhaustion, and that Booth overturned this court’s ruling in Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263, 1267 (10th Cir. 1997), that exhaustion was not required. 2 In his response, Hall acknowledged Booth and agreed that Booth required inmates seeking only monetary damages to exhaust th eir administrative remedies, but argued that the holding in Garretthad “led [him] to believe that he could in good faith file for money damages in a civil action without exhaustion of remedies” and that Booth should be applied only prospectively and not to “pending civil actions filed in accord with the law that existed . . . some six years prior [to Booth ]” to avoid “a discrimination of due process of law and equal protection of the laws and substantial prejudice.” R. Doc. 83 at 2. A month after filing his response, Hall filed a “Mo tion to Expand the Record with New Evidence as to the Administrative R emedies” in which he3 The appeals that were rejected due to procedural de fects specifically

allowed resubmission within fifteen days of the rej ection, but there is no evidence the appeals were resubmitted. -5- sought to present documents “as evidence against t he summary judgment Motion of [Appellees].” R. Doc. 85 at 1. He asserted that such evidence “clearly show[ed] that the remedy had been exhausted under a nother civil suit of ‘Continuous Torts.’” Id . Attached to the motion, inter alia, were a numbe r of administrative claims and appeals to Bureau of Pris on officials of all levels, which had been denied or rejected, due to mostly pr ocedural defects, failure to timely file administrative claims, and failure to attach proof of prior administrative complaints. 3 The district court, relying on Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation , 509 U.S. 86 (1993), held that it had to give full e ffect to the Supreme Court’s decision in Booth

. R. Doc. 95 at 3. The court also found “no merit to [Hall’s] subsequent attempt to exhaust administrative remedi es in December 2002,” but granted his motion to expand the record to include the documents. Id . The court concluded that the documents “offer[ed] no legal support to [Hall’s] showing of . . . exhaustion.” Id . The district court granted Appellees’ motion forsummary judgment on the ground that Hall failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Id . at 4.4 The authority provided by Hall as support for his argument that Booth

should not be applied is not on point in that the c ited cases address the retroactive application of statutes, not the temporal scope of an interpretation of a statute by the Supreme Court. Hall also makes three brief references apparently t o his submission to the district court of his various administrative claims and appeals. Considering the exceedingly brief and nearly unintelligible treatme nt given to these references and the lack of any supporting authority, we do not rea d these references as an attempt to appeal the district court’s factual finding thatHall failed to exhaust his administrative claims. If it was Hall’s intention to so appeal, he failed to properly raise such a claim, even in light of the considerab le latitude given to pro se appellants. See Murrell v. Shalala , 43 F.3d 1388, 1389-90 n.2 (10 th Cir. 1994); Phillips v. Calhoun , 956 F.2d 949, 953-54 (10 th Cir. 1992). Even a pro se appellant must clearly apprise the court that he be lieves a reversible error has been made and make an argument with authority suppo rting such a belief. -6- On appeal, Hall reprises his district court argumen t that Booth should not have been applied to his case to dismiss his claim against Appellees. 4
The district court was correct in its reliance on Harper : “‘When [the Supreme] Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and m ust be given full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct review and as to all events, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate [the] annou ncement of the rule.’” Talley
v. Hesse , 91 F.3d 1411, 1413 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Harper , 509 U.S. at 97). Therefore, upon review of the parties’ briefs and t he record before us, we AFFIRM the district court’s order and judgment granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing all remaining claim s in the complaint without-7-

prejudice, for substantially the reasons stated in its May 30, 2004, order. We remind defendant that he remains obligated to make partial payments on his filing fee until the fee is paid. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge