Court Opinion

ID: 9377733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 17:00:43.951236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:16.017578
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-3285     Document: 010110823234       Date Filed: 03/08/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           March 8, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  ANTHONY S. KIDD,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,
                                                              No. 22-3285
  v.                                              (D.C. No. 5:22-CV-03123-JWL-JPO)
                                                               (D. Kan.)
  JEREMY BAKER; TYLER JONES;
  MICHAEL FALCK; JASON VSETECKA;
  (FNU) SIMMONS; JOHN DOE,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before McHUGH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       After examining Anthony Kidd’s written submissions and the appellate record,

 this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist

 in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R.

 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-3285    Document: 010110823234        Date Filed: 03/08/2023     Page: 2

       Kidd appeals, pro se, from an order of the district court dismissing his

 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint.1 In that complaint, Kidd alleged corrections

 officers at the Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility choked him and used

 excessive force after he was handcuffed and restrained. The district court noted

 Kidd’s action was properly dismissed on two independent grounds. First,

 considering only the facts upon which the parties agreed, the district court concluded

 Kidd’s complaint failed to state a claim. Alternatively, the district court concluded

 Kidd failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.

 § 1997e(a). In so doing, the district court described at length the dual-track system

 of administrative exhaustion set out in Kansas law. The district court noted that

 because Kidd’s claims involved allegations of personal injury, the relevant path to

 exhaust his claims was that set out in Kan. Admin. Regs. § 44-16-104a. And, as the

 district court correctly concluded, Kidd did not utilize the procedures set out in § 44-

 16-104a. See R. Vol. I at 35 (grievance resolution from unit manager specifically

 informing Kidd he could not utilize the grievance procedures set out in Article 15 of

 Chapter 44 of the Kansas Administrative Regulations to exhaust his personal injury

 claims); id at 40 (same as to warden).

       This court reviews de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust. Jernigan v.

 Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002). A review of Kidd’s appellate

       1
         Kidd’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C.
 § 1915. He is reminded that he must continue making partial payments until the
 appellate filing fee is paid in full. Id. § 1915(b)(1).

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-3285    Document: 010110823234           Date Filed: 03/08/2023   Page: 3

 arguments, the record, and the pertinent authorities demonstrates the district court

 correctly concluded Kidd’s complaint must be dismissed because Kidd failed to

 properly exhaust his administrative remedies.2 See id. Accordingly, the district court

 is affirmed for substantially those reasons relating to the issue of exhaustion set out

 in the order of dismissal dated December 7, 2022. This court need not, and does not,

 opine on the correctness of any aspect of the district court’s conclusion that Kidd’s

 complaint failed to state a valid excessive force claim.

       For those reasons set out above, the order of the United States District Court

 for the District of Kansas is hereby AFFIRMED.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Michael R. Murphy
                                             Circuit Judge

       2
         A dismissal for failure to exhaust is usually without prejudice. Fitzgerald v.
 Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134, 1139 (10th Cir. 2005). In this case, however, the
 record indicates Kidd could not now file a timely administrative grievance. See Kan.
 Admin. Regs. § 44-16-104a(a) (setting out a ten-day timeframe for filing a claim of
 personal injury). Thus, allowing Kidd an attempt to properly exhaust his claims
 would be futile. See Thompson v. Coulter, 680 F. App’x 707, 712 (10th Cir. 2017)
 (unpublished disposition cited exclusively for its persuasive value).
                                             3