Opinion ID: 2832723
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disposition of Grievances

Text: Throughout this period at OSP, Mr. Brewer alleges he submitted a number of grievances to the prison administration. During March 2012, when he alleges Mr. and Ms. Spears were withholding his food and Lieutenants Glover and Jowels were 17 throwing his food onto his cell floor, Mr. Brewer claims he filed three grievances and a “Request to Staff” with the prison administration. Mr. Brewer asserts he sent two grievances to Warden Randall Workman and one to Director’s Designee Debbie Morton. He claims he did not receive responses to these grievances and that he was moved to a high max cell a year after making these complaints.18 Because he felt prison officials were inadequately addressing his complaints, Mr. Brewer wrote directly to Deputy Director D.B. Parker. Mr. Brewer credits writing to Deputy Director Parker with improving the situation because he was then granted yard and exercise time, allowed showers three times a week, and provided three meals every day. Mr. Brewer nevertheless filed further grievances with the Director’s Designee Mark Knutson, one labeled an “emergency” grievance relating to the allegedly broken water faucet in his high max cell and two others labeled alternatively “emergency” and “sensitive” relating to racial discrimination he claimed he was experiencing at that time. Mr. Brewer claims Mr. Knutson responded that his broken water faucet was not an “emergency” and that Mr. Knutson “refused to address the racism issues.” The district court outlined the requirements of the mandatory grievance process in use by the ODOC at the relevant time. See Brewer, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18 Neither Randall Workman nor Debbie Morton is named as a defendant in this case. 18 33393, at -.19 In addressing Mr. Brewer’s claims about deficiencies in the disposition of his grievances, the district court considered the Martinez reports it had ordered defendants to prepare. See id. at .20 The uncontroverted Martinez report relating to OSP (Dkt. No. 61) included a sworn affidavit of Director’s Designee Mark Knutson (Dkt. No. 61, Ex. 15). In his affidavit, Mr. Knutson addresses each of the grievances filed by Mr. Brewer and the disposition of each according to the ODOC 19 The district court described the process as follows: According to DOC Policy OP-090124, “Inmate/Offender Grievance Process,” an inmate first must attempt to resolve his complaint informally. If that is unsuccessful, he may submit a Request to Staff (RTS). If the complaint still is not resolved, he then may file a grievance. If the grievance also does not resolve the issue, the inmate may appeal to the Administrative Review Authority or the Chief Medical Officer. The administrative process is exhausted only after all of these steps have been taken. . . . . Both DOC and CCA/DCF policies provide a specific remedy to an inmate in the event of failure of staff to respond to a RTS. Pursuant to DOC policy, if there has been no response within 30 calendar days of submission, the inmate may file a grievance to the reviewing authority with evidence of submitting the RTS to the proper staff member. The grievance may assert only the issue of lack of response to the RTS. Brewer, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33393, at -. Moreover, the ODOC grievance policies “permit a prisoner to circumvent the informal resolution processes and submit a grievance without first talking to an appropriate official and submitting a Request to Staff, provided that the grievance addresses a sensitive or emergency matter. A prisoner must use a particular form and write the word ‘emergency’ at the top of the form.” Smith v. Beck, 165 Fed. Appx. 681, 684 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 20 Although a “Martinez report may not be used to resolve disputed factual issues,” in the Tenth Circuit, “an uncontroverted report may serve as the basis for a dismissal” on a 12(b)(6) motion. Gallagher, 587 F.3d at 1068 n.7. 19 grievance procedures in effect at that time, including the reason that each grievance was returned or denied.21 Mr. Brewer has no independent due process rights that arise out of OSP or ODOC employees’ disposition of internal grievances. See, e.g., Gallagher, 587 F.3d at 1069 (holding that allegations related to the denial of prisoner’s grievances were insufficient to state a cognizable due process claim); Boyd v. Werholtz, 443 F. App’x 331, 332 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding that there is no independent constitutional right to state prison administrative grievance procedures). And the uncontroverted Martinez report relating to OSP reveals Mr. Brewer’s allegations of deficiencies in the disposition of his grievances as specious. The district court therefore correctly dismissed Mr. Brewer’s claims against Mr. Knutson.