Opinion ID: 4374878
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard Grievance

Text: Rachel contends that he exhausted claims by submitting grievance JCCC 14-218 through the standard grievance process. He began the process by submitting an RTS to Dowling, the JCCC Warden, referencing Grogan’s determination that JCCC 14-193 didn’t qualify as an emergency. Rachel asked Dowling what qualified Grogan to be the HSA, and he requested that Dowling get him qualified medical help. Dowling responded that Grogan met the qualifications for her position. She also advised Rachel to complete a Request for Health Services, rather than an emergency grievance, if he needed medical care. In response, Rachel submitted a grievance to Dowling asking, again, what qualified Grogan to be the 6 HSA. Dowling denied the grievance, repeating her response to the RTS. Rachel appealed to McCoy, who returned his appeal unanswered, identifying a procedural defect3 and advising Rachel to submit a Request for Health Services to obtain medical care. The district court held that JCCC 14-218 didn’t exhaust Rachel’s claim that Dowling demonstrated deliberate indifference toward his extreme pain and a serious risk of harm by denying JCCC 14-218. We agree. “[A properly completed] grievance satisfies § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement so long as it provides prison officials with enough information to investigate and address the inmate’s complaint internally.” Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269, 1285 (10th Cir. 2006), overruled on other grounds as recognized in Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir. 2008). JCCC 14-218 didn’t concern Dowling’s handling of that same grievance and therefore didn’t place Dowling on notice of Rachel’s allegation. For the same reason, Rachel also failed to exhaust, via JCCC 14-218: (1) his claims against McCoy that she demonstrated deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by wrongfully rejecting his appeals in all three of his grievances; (2) his claims against Grogan that she answered Requests to Staff that were directed to Troutt and ignored prisoners’ complaints about Troutt; and (3) his claims against Troutt that he refused to provide certain medications, look at sores on Rachel’s body, 3 Defendants contend on appeal that JCCC 14-218 was procedurally defective, but they didn’t sufficiently raise this issue in their summary judgment brief. We therefore decline to affirm summary judgment on this alternative basis. 7 refer Rachel to a specialist, put Rachel on a special diet, and reply to Requests to Staff. JCCC 14-218 didn’t concern any of these issues and therefore didn’t provide sufficient notice of these particular claims against McCoy, Grogan, and Troutt to permit prison authorities to investigate and address them.